[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62162DF05402B341B3DB59932A1FA992B5B5CA01B7@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:40:22 -0500
From: Shawn Lu <shawn.lu@...csson.com>
To: "Erich E. Hoover" <ehoover@...es.edu>
CC: Linux Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/2] Implement IP_UNICAST_IF socket option.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erich E. Hoover [mailto:ehoover@...es.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:35 AM
> To: Shawn Lu
> Cc: Linux Netdev
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] Implement IP_UNICAST_IF socket option.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Shawn Lu
> <shawn.lu@...csson.com> wrote:
> >On 2/6/12, Erich E. Hoover <ehoover@...es.edu> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> + if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if && ifindex !=
> >> + sk->sk_bound_dev_if)
> > If I understand right, when sk->sk_bound_dev_if !=0 ,
> > sk->sk_bound_dev_if will be used instead. Then why bother
> to set outif_index.
> > Here.
>
> It seems to me that if the socket is already bound to an
> interface (other than intended interface) then it makes sense
> to fail to set the option, since it will clearly not work
> under this circumstance. I may be misunderstanding you though.
What I mean is replace
if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if && ifindex != sk->sk_bound_dev_if)
With
if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if)
>
> Erich Hoover
> ehoover@...es.edu
> --
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