On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 07:18:59PM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> > <go...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> >
> >> /* /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter */
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl_binary.c b/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> >> index 7e7746a..c9d0a0e 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
> >> @@ -253,6 +253,7 @@ static const struct bin_table
> >> bin_net_ipv4_conf_vars_table[] = {
> >> { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_NOPOLICY,
> >> "disable_policy" },
> >> { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_FORCE_IGMP_VERSION,
> >> "force_igmp_version" },
> >> { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_PROMOTE_SECONDARIES,
> >> "promote_secondaries" },
> >> + { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_IGNORE_ROUTES_WITH_LINKDOWN,
> >> "ignore_routes_with_linkdown" },
> >
> > Would "route_ignore_linkdown_nexthops" be a more accurate name? The
> > patch marks link-downed nexthops to be ignored, not the route,
> > correct?
> >
> > s/NET_IPV4_CONF_IGNORE_ROUTES_WITH_LINKDOWN/NET_IPV4_CONF_ROUTE_IGNORE_LINKDOWN_NEXTHOPS
>
> Something like that. Not sure I like my suggestion. If dev is
> nexthop dev in route, and dev is link down, exclude nexthop in route
> lookup.
I actually played around with a bunch of different names and this was as
short as I could get it while still conveying the point. I'm getting
ready to submit v3, so speak now if you really do hate the name proposed
in v2.
> route_exclude_if_linkdown_nexthop_dev?
Not bad, but you see what I mean about it being a mouthful. :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
