Hi,
From RFC 3493, Section 5.2:
IPV6_MULTICAST_IF
Set the interface to use for outgoing multicast packets. The
argument is the index of the interface to use. If the
interface index is specified as zero, the system selects the
interface (for example,
Acked-by: David L Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Brian Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
index 532425d..1334fc1 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c
@@ -539,12 +539,15 @@ done:
case
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:49:14 -0700
Acked-by: David L Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied, thanks everyone!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hi,
From RFC 3493, Section 5.2:
IPV6_MULTICAST_IF
Set the interface to use for outgoing multicast packets. The
argument is the index of the interface to use. If the
interface index is specified as zero, the system selects the
interface (for example,
What about just checking for 0 in the later test?
if (val __dev_get_by_index(val) == NULL) {
...
+-DLS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
David Stevens wrote:
What about just checking for 0 in the later test?
if (val __dev_get_by_index(val) == NULL) {
We could fail the next check right before that though:
if (sk-sk_bound_dev_if sk-sk_bound_dev_if != val)
goto e_inval;
I just mimicked what
Brian Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/10/2007 02:20:45 PM:
David Stevens wrote:
What about just checking for 0 in the later test?
if (val __dev_get_by_index(val) == NULL) {
We could fail the next check right before that though:
Right, the semantics there would be
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:48:38 -0700
But anyway, I made the comment; I think some form of it
should go in. :-) If you like the original better, that's
ok with me, too.
Brian, please submit a new patch or resubmit the original
one, the choice is your's
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:42:56 -0700 (PDT)),
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:48:38 -0700
But anyway, I made the comment; I think some form of it
should go in. :-) If you like the original
