Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:05:51 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Don't assign a same IPv6 address on a same interface | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:51 +0900 (JST)
In article <20030331.033524.114862210.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> (at Mon, 31 Mar 2003 03:35:24 +0900 (JST)), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> says:
> In article <20030330163656.GA18645@ferrara.linux.it> (at Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:36:56 +0200), Simone Piunno <pioppo@ferrara.linux.it> says: > > > - locking inside ipv6_add_addr() is simpler and more linear but > > semantically wrong because you're unable to tell the user why his > > "ip addr add" failed. E.g. you answer ENOBUFS instead of EEXIST. > > We don't want to create duplicate address in any case. > ipv6_add_addr() IS right place. > And, we can return error code by using IS_ERR() etc. > I'll fix this. Here's the revised patch.
Applied to both 2.4.x and 2.5.x.
BTW, 2.4.x patch failed in two spots, one was author comment which I easily fixed, second was in privacy code which I did not apply yet to 2.4.x (I fixed this too, don't worry).
I do not want to put privacy code into 2.4.x until crypto is there. I plan to put crypto lib into 2.4.22-pre1. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |