From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Prefix List against 2.5.73 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:59:30 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-net-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030715.155930.65250697.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <200307150117.FAA06705@dub.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: krkumar@us.ibm.com, davem@redhat.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Return-path: To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru In-Reply-To: <200307150117.FAA06705@dub.inr.ac.ru> List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org In article <200307150117.FAA06705@dub.inr.ac.ru> (at Tue, 15 Jul 2003 05:17:53 +0400 (MSD)), kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru says: > Hello! > > > inet6_fill_ifaddr (and introduce RTM_IFACEFLAGS). This will be specific to > > IPv6. Are you agreeable to this ? > ... > > + IFA_IFFLAGS, > > What's about ifa_flags? There is some space there, and the things > kept there now: TENTATIVE/DEPRECATED et al. are close relatives > of O/M. Alexey, O/M are not flags for addresses, but for interfaces. I believe we should not mix them up. -- Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA