[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180327100014.466e3f8b@xeon-e3>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 10:00:14 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Alexander Zubkov <green@....ru>
Cc: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>,
Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] Revert "iproute: "list/flush/save default"
selected all of the routes"
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:29:31 +0200
Alexander Zubkov <green@....ru> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Looks like the new patch was applied after the revert of original patch and fix patch for 4.15 branch. Which is not correct and I did not test it. This is how patches were designed:
> 1) your revert patch - rolls back 4.15 branch to old behaviour by reverting the original patch
> 2) my patch for 4.15 - fixes problem is 4.15 branch, it does not require revert patch, it is an alternative solution for the problem, it is designed solely for version 4.15
> 3) my patch for master - fixes problem, it requires neither revert patch nor my patch for 4.15, it is standalone patch designed to do things right in master branch
>
> 27.03.2018, 18:01, "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@...workplumber.org>:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:26:40 +0100
> > Alexander Zubkov <green@....ru> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> For example, it can be fixed in such way (patch is below):
> >> - split handling of default and all/any
> >> - set needed attributes in get_addr: PREFIXLEN_SPECIFIED flag for default
> >> - and AF_UNSPEC for all/any
> >> In this case "ip route show default" shows only default route and "ip
> >> route show all" shows all routes. And both also work when family (-4 or
> >> -6) is specified.
> >> Serhey, does it goes in line with what you wanted to achieve? Because I
> >> do not know - may be there are reasons why all/any should be provided
> >> with specific family. If you think this solution is suitable, I'll do
> >> some additional tests and package the patch in a proper way for this
> >> mailing list.
> >> And I'm unsure if check for AF_DECnet and AF_MPLS should be kept in both
> >> branches. May be someone have some additional thoughts on that?
> >
> > I applied this to master.
> >
> > We can work on the other cases after that.
Please send the update back to what works.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists