On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:29:31 +0200 Alexander Zubkov <gr...@msu.ru> wrote:
> Hi Stephen, > > Looks like the new patch was applied after the revert of original patch and > fix patch for 4.15 branch. Which is not correct and I did not test it. This > is how patches were designed: > 1) your revert patch - rolls back 4.15 branch to old behaviour by reverting > the original patch > 2) my patch for 4.15 - fixes problem is 4.15 branch, it does not require > revert patch, it is an alternative solution for the problem, it is designed > solely for version 4.15 > 3) my patch for master - fixes problem, it requires neither revert patch nor > my patch for 4.15, it is standalone patch designed to do things right in > master branch > > 27.03.2018, 18:01, "Stephen Hemminger" <step...@networkplumber.org>: > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:26:40 +0100 > > Alexander Zubkov <gr...@msu.ru> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> For example, it can be fixed in such way (patch is below): > >> - split handling of default and all/any > >> - set needed attributes in get_addr: PREFIXLEN_SPECIFIED flag for default > >> - and AF_UNSPEC for all/any > >> In this case "ip route show default" shows only default route and "ip > >> route show all" shows all routes. And both also work when family (-4 or > >> -6) is specified. > >> Serhey, does it goes in line with what you wanted to achieve? Because I > >> do not know - may be there are reasons why all/any should be provided > >> with specific family. If you think this solution is suitable, I'll do > >> some additional tests and package the patch in a proper way for this > >> mailing list. > >> And I'm unsure if check for AF_DECnet and AF_MPLS should be kept in both > >> branches. May be someone have some additional thoughts on that? > > > > I applied this to master. > > > > We can work on the other cases after that. Please send the update back to what works.
