On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 07:50:39PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote: > > Yes, IPv6 needs "split device" semantics > (for per-device statistics such as Ip6InDelivers etc), > and I like later solution.
OK. Is there any reason why IPv4 should be different from IPv6 in this respect though? If the split device dst's are to be kept, we'll need a way to clean them up. There are two choices: 1) Put the dst's on IPv6's own GC so that we can search by rt6i_idev. 2) Change the generic GC so that dst->ops->ifdown is always called even if dst->dev does not match with the device going down. We also need to change the individual ifdown functions to check for ->dev. The IPv6 ifdown function can then check for ->rt6i_idev as well. What's your preference? Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
