On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:33:28 +0200 Alexander Zubkov <gr...@msu.ru> wrote:
> master before merging revert + my recent patch (1) should work. Or you mean > to prepare patch to change new master to desired state? I can do it. > > 1) > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/patch/?id=7696f1097f79be2ce5984a8a16103fd17391cac2 > > 27.03.2018, 19:00, "Stephen Hemminger" <step...@networkplumber.org>: > > 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. Make patches against current master. For visible repositories, I prefer to only move forward and not rollback. So you can send a revert patch than new code if that is easier.
