On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 08:02:26PM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> <go...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodaerk <go...@cumulusnetworks.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dinesh Dutt <dd...@cumulusnetworks.com>
> >
> > ---
> > ip/iproute.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/ip/iproute.c b/ip/iproute.c
> > index 3795baf..3369c49 100644
> > --- a/ip/iproute.c
> > +++ b/ip/iproute.c
> > @@ -451,6 +451,8 @@ int print_route(const struct sockaddr_nl *who, struct
> > nlmsghdr *n, void *arg)
> > fprintf(fp, "offload ");
> > if (r->rtm_flags & RTM_F_NOTIFY)
> > fprintf(fp, "notify ");
> > + if (r->rtm_flags & RTNH_F_LINKDOWN)
> > + fprintf(fp, "linkdown ");
>
> This seems confusing for ECMP case where only some nexthop devs are
> RTNH_F_LINKDOWN? Why mark entire route "linkdown" when it still has
> viable nexthop devs for ECMP?
This is no different than what happens when nexthops are marked dead
today. This situation happens when a route's nexthop has IFF_UP
cleared.
>
>
> > if (tb[RTA_MARK]) {
> > unsigned int mark = *(unsigned int*)RTA_DATA(tb[RTA_MARK]);
> > if (mark) {
> > @@ -670,6 +672,8 @@ int print_route(const struct sockaddr_nl *who, struct
> > nlmsghdr *n, void *arg)
> > fprintf(fp, " onlink");
> > if (nh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_PERVASIVE)
> > fprintf(fp, " pervasive");
> > + if (nh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_LINKDOWN)
> > + fprintf(fp, " linkdown");
> > len -= NLMSG_ALIGN(nh->rtnh_len);
> > nh = RTNH_NEXT(nh);
> > }
> > --
> > 1.9.3
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
