From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next V2] net: split rt_genid for ipv4 and ipv6 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 04:04:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20130723020437.GC30719@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <1374543420-12657-1-git-send-email-fan.du@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: davem@davemloft.net, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jmorris@namei.org, steffen.klassert@secunet.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Fan Du Return-path: Received: from s15338416.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.68.36]:33286 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750872Ab3GWCEi (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:04:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1374543420-12657-1-git-send-email-fan.du@windriver.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:37:00AM +0800, Fan Du wrote: > Current net name space has only one genid for both IPv4 and IPv6, it has below drawbacks: > > - Add/delete an IPv4 address will invalidate all IPv6 routing table entries. > - Insert/remove XFRM policy will also invalidate both IPv4/IPv6 routing table entries > even when the policy is only applied for one address family. > > Thus, this patch attempt to split one genid for two to cater for IPv4 and IPv6 separately > in a fine granularity. For me the approach seems reasonable. We should double-check if this does not affect v4mapped af_inet6 sockets in any way. I could help to do the review if there is an agreement that the split is desirable. Thanks, Hannes