[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100216152859.GC29736@midget.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:28:59 +0100
From: Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, jbohac@...e.cz, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ipv6: why disable ipv6 on last address removal?
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 10:44:36PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
> Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:39:15 +0900
>
> > Well, AFAIK, it is basically ancient thing.
> > Some (rather new) paramters are exactly related bringing
> > up each interface.
> >
> > Such parameters should be set _before_ it is brought up.
> > For now, people can do this using the "default" value.
>
> I think we should retain inet6 device private structure after
> we allocate it the first time that an ipv6 action occurs for
> the device, exactly so that settings made earlier can be
> retained.
Good, this was what my patch is doing. I still think this is as
simple as:
--- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
@@ -2185,7 +2185,7 @@ static int inet6_addr_del(struct net *net, int ifindex, struct in6_addr *pfx,
disable IPv6 on this interface.
*/
if (idev->addr_list == NULL)
- addrconf_ifdown(idev->dev, 1);
+ addrconf_ifdown(idev->dev, 0);
return 0;
}
}
It does the same thing as NETDEV_DOWN down instead of the current
NETDEV_UNREGISTER-like behaviour. Could this perhaps be tried in
-next?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, SUSE CZ
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists