On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:34:04PM +0200, Jan Moskyto Matejka wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 11:24:47AM -0400, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jan Moskyto Matejka <m...@ucw.cz> > > Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 13:15:10 +0200 > > > > > -int rt6_dump_route(struct rt6_info *rt, void *p_arg); > > > +int rt6_dump_route(struct rt6_info *rt, void *p_arg, int truncate); > > > > Please use "bool" and "true"/"false" for boolean values. > > Missed that, sorry. Will remember next time. > > > What does ipv4 do in this situation? > > > > I'm hesitant to be OK with adding a new nlmsg flag just for this case > > if we solve this problem differently and using existing mechanisms > > elsewhere. > > IPv4 is broken the same way as IPv6, with the difference that > 'ip route append' does not append a new multipath nexthop but > creates a whole new route. > > It is probably impossible to create such a big route via iproute2 tool; > it is needed to open netlink socket by hand and write there the > attached file. (It is one nlmsg adding one huge multipath route.)
Oops, it's late evening here. Attached now. MQ
ipv4-huge-multipath
Description: Binary data
