[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151208.224100.1951416968376650648.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 22:41:00 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dsa@...ulusnetworks.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, shm@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net: Add fib rules at vrf device create
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:21:51 -0700
> On 12/8/15 8:08 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>> root@...ny-jessie2:~# ip ru add oif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>>
>> root@...ny-jessie2:~# ip ru ls
>> 0: from all lookup local
>> 32759: from all oif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>> 32760: from all iif vrf-green lookup vrf-green
>> 32761: from all oif vrf-green lookup vrf-green
>> 32762: from all iif vrf-blue lookup vrf-blue
>> 32763: from all oif vrf-blue lookup vrf-blue
>> 32764: from all iif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>> 32765: from all oif vrf-red lookup vrf-red
>> 32766: from all lookup main
>> 32767: from all lookup default
>
> d'oh. They don't fail in the sense of a user getting an error message
> but they add duplicate entries. So, if I fix the duplicity (ie., don't
> add a second one) would the patch be acceptable?
No, people need to issue all the commands in order for the configuration
to work in all kernels.
--
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