On (05/22/07 11:21), Sebastien Roy wrote: > >Should RTF_SETSRC be in this list? It's used by cgtp, and the > >cgtp design doc mentions that the RTF_SETSRC kernel logic "benefits > >from the already existing, but hidden command RTA_SRC.." > > Thanks for pointing this out. Rather than including RTF_SETSRC as an > interface not being removed, I will include RTA_SRC as an interface not > being removed because it's also used by CGTP. > > Thanks!
There may be some dead code associated with RTA_SRC itself: see 6542265, for example.. --Sowmini
