Hello! > the two sets of #defines (if_flags & ifa_flags since they intersect). I propose > changing the values of IFA_PERM/TENT/DEPRE/SECOND, This is almost impossible, it is an old public API. > which is the first bit of the field, but let me know if this is not acceptable. Select yourself: either IFA_IFFLAGS or translated flags in ifa_flags. I prefer the second way just because it is too unpleasant to add a new attribute for sake of two bits with no visible candidates to use remaining ones. > OK, I can change that to give a filter. Is it OK to add the filter to rtm_flags ? > I was thinking of adding RTM_F_PREFIX, and rt6_dump_route() can pass this information > to rt6_fill_node() which does filtering of routes based on whether this flag is set > or not. Did I understand you correctly here ? Perfectly! > I can remove the check completely and introduce a new flag RTF_PREFIX_RT to distinguish > between various route types. > > Are these modifications OK ? Yes, I would prefer this... Actually, it is mostly to leave possibility to override this bit administratively. :-) If you insist this is totally illegal and the rule must be hardwired, new flag is really redundant. Alexey - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
