Le 30/05/2016 18:01, Vincent Bernat a écrit : > ❦ 30 mai 2016 17:58 CEST, Vincent Bernat <vinc...@bernat.im> : > >> + >> + rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, peer, IFF_SLAVE, GFP_KERNEL); > > Maybe ~0U would be better than hijacking IFF_SLAVE? IFF_SLAVE is wrong. It's a flag here, that will be put in the ifi_change field not an attribute number.
- [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration after interfa... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration afte... Vincent Bernat
- [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration after interfa... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration afte... Nicolas Dichtel
- Re: [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration after int... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration afte... Nicolas Dichtel
- Re: [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configuration ... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [PATCH] veth: delay peer link configurat... Nicolas Dichtel
- [net v3] veth: advertise peer link once ... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Nicolas Dichtel
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Nicolas Dichtel
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Lance Richardson
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Nicolas Dichtel
- Re: [net v3] veth: advertise peer l... Lance Richardson
- [net v4] veth: advertise peer link ... Vincent Bernat
- Re: [net v4] veth: advertise peer l... Vincent Bernat