From: "Venkat Yekkirala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:49:17 -0600
> > Something like this (untested) on the ipv4 side, for example:
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/route.h b/include/net/route.h
> > index 486e37a..a8af632 100644
> > --- a/include/net/route.h
> > +++ b/include/net/route.h
> > @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ static inline char rt_tos2priority(u8 tos)
> >
> > static inline int ip_route_connect(struct rtable **rp, __be32 dst,
> > __be32 src, u32 tos, int
> > oif, u8 protocol,
> > - __be16 sport, __be16 dport,
> > struct sock *sk)
> > + __be16 sport, __be16 dport,
> > struct sock *sk,
> > + int flags)
> > {
> > struct flowi fl = { .oif = oif,
> > .nl_u = { .ip4_u = { .daddr = dst,
> > @@ -168,7 +169,7 @@ static inline int ip_route_connect(struct
> > rtable **rp, __be32 dst,
> > *rp = NULL;
> > }
> > security_sk_classify_flow(sk, &fl);
> > - return ip_route_output_flow(rp, &fl, sk, 0);
> > + return ip_route_output_flow(rp, &fl, sk, 1);
>
> I guess you meant to pass the new flags param to ip_route_output_flow here?
Yes I did, thanks for catching that.
commit a6886040ae6b8c9bfc811bd0dbdb47cfa3f2db29
Author: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Feb 5 13:11:42 2007 -0800
[IPV4]: Fix thinko in ip_route_connect().
The idea was the pass in the new "flags" parameter down
to ip_route_output_flow().
Noticed by Venkat Tekkirala.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/include/net/route.h b/include/net/route.h
index a8af632..1440bdb 100644
--- a/include/net/route.h
+++ b/include/net/route.h
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static inline int ip_route_connect(struct rtable **rp,
__be32 dst,
*rp = NULL;
}
security_sk_classify_flow(sk, &fl);
- return ip_route_output_flow(rp, &fl, sk, 1);
+ return ip_route_output_flow(rp, &fl, sk, flags);
}
static inline int ip_route_newports(struct rtable **rp, u8 protocol,
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
