Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: fix problems from the RTNH_F_LINKDOWN introduction

2015-10-26 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:20:00PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event > we should not delete the local routes if the local address > is still present. The confusion comes from the fact that both > fib_netdev_event and fib_inetaddr_event

Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: fix problems from the RTNH_F_LINKDOWN introduction

2015-10-26 Thread Julian Anastasov
Hello, On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:20:00PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event > > we should not delete the local routes if the local address > > is still present. The confusion

Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: fix problems from the RTNH_F_LINKDOWN introduction

2015-10-26 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Hello, > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Andy Gospodarek wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:20:00PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > > When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event > > > we should not

[PATCH net] ipv4: fix problems from the RTNH_F_LINKDOWN introduction

2015-10-24 Thread Julian Anastasov
When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event we should not delete the local routes if the local address is still present. The confusion comes from the fact that both fib_netdev_event and fib_inetaddr_event use the NETDEV_DOWN constant. Fix it by returning back the variable