[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a3c3680-7018-6ca9-e8f0-43201e0d3272@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:14:51 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
David Decotigny <ddecotig@...gle.com>
Cc: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>,
David Decotigny <decot+git@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
"Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>,
Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@...tuozzo.com>,
Thomas Zeitlhofer <thomas.zeitlhofer+lkml@...it.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] net: neigh: persist proxy config across link flaps
On 12/15/22 2:16 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 12:36:32 -0800 David Decotigny wrote:
>>> Makes sense. This is not urgent, tho, right?
>>
>> Not that kind of urgent.
>>
>> FTR, in the v2 you suggested to use NUD_PERMANENT,
>
> I think that was Alex. I don't have a strong preference. I could see
> arguments being made in both directions (basically whether it's more
> important to leave objects which are clearly not cache vs we care
> more about consistent behavior based on the permanent flag itself).
>
> Let's limit the reposts until experts are in town ;)
>
>> I can try to see how this would look like. Note that this will make
>> the patch larger and more intrusive, and with potentially a behavior
>> change for whoever uses the netlink API directly instead of the
>> iproute2 implementation for ip neigh X proxy things.
My thinking is inline with Alex's comment on v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists