[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C4B759.70504@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:09:29 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: Make address flushing on ifdown optional
On 2/17/16 11:05 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 14:23:27 -0800
>
>> @@ -3427,31 +3493,52 @@ static int addrconf_ifdown(struct net_device *dev, int how)
>> write_lock_bh(&idev->lock);
>> }
>>
>> - while (!list_empty(&idev->addr_list)) {
>> - ifa = list_first_entry(&idev->addr_list,
>> - struct inet6_ifaddr, if_list);
>> - addrconf_del_dad_work(ifa);
>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&del_list);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(ifa, tmp, &idev->addr_list, if_list) {
>> + bool keep_ifa = false;
>>
>> - list_del(&ifa->if_list);
>> + if (!how && keep_addr && ifa->user_managed)
>> + keep_ifa = true;
>
> I think it would make sense to evaluate "!how && keep_addr" outside the
> loop. The only thing that changes is ifa->user_managed on each iteration.
>
> But I also want some more documentation in what you are doing here.
>
> I understand the address flushing on ifdown avoidance, but all of this
> user_managed logic is not mentioned at all. Why do you need it? What
> role does it play in achieving your goal?
>
Per prior comment user_managed will go away in favor of checking
IFA_F_PERMANENT. We are only keeping permanent addresses which in past
versions of the patch were marked with user_managed flag but it is
redundant.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists