Sorry, but I don't think this patch is needed. It is OK to add a route
with the RTF_EXPIRES flag set and rtmsg_info == 0. It's simply a route
that expires straight away. So there is no inconsistency in allowing this.
I agree
In fact if anything we should find a way to export the RTF_EXPIR
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:22:17AM -0800, Jean-Mickael Guerin wrote:
>
> I'm resending the patch to fix the lifetime of IPv6 routes, you may want
> to include it in your tree or let me know if there is something wrong or
> incomplete.
Sorry, but I don't think this patch is needed. It is OK to a
Probably, the caller should not set RTF_EXPIRES when allocating
new one. Instead, set rt6i_expires and RTF_EXPIRES afterwards
(as your patch does).
It makes sense.
And, please make your patch so that we can apply it by "patch -p1"
at the top directory of the tree; e.g.
% diff -u linux-2.6.1
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:35:08 +0100),
Jean-Mickael Guerin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> Following patch drops this flag. As you can see, it requires to set the
> flag back to RTF_EXPIRES in ndisc_router_discovery(), because
> rt6_add_dflt_router() asks a new route w
When adding a route, expiration attribute may be 0. In my understanding,
it means the route never expires and rt6i_expires should be 0, and not
the current time. If right, attached patch should fix the issue.
Well, please drop RTF_EXPIRES also. Thanks.
Following patch drops this flag. As y
Hi,
When adding a route, expiration attribute may be 0. In my understanding,
it means the route never expires and rt6i_expires should be 0, and not
the current time. If right, attached patch should fix the issue.
Regards,
Jean-Mickael
Signed-off-by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- route.c.orig
