On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Andy Gospodarek
<[email protected]> wrote:
> @@ -1129,7 +1142,15 @@ int fib_sync_down_dev(struct net_device *dev, int
> force)
> dead++;
> else if (nexthop_nh->nh_dev == dev &&
> nexthop_nh->nh_scope != scope) {
> - nexthop_nh->nh_flags |= RTNH_F_DEAD;
> + switch (event) {
> + case NETDEV_DOWN:
> + case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
> + nexthop_nh->nh_flags |= RTNH_F_DEAD;
> + /* fall through */
> + case NETDEV_CHANGE:
> + nexthop_nh->nh_flags |=
> RTNH_F_LINKDOWN;
> + break;
> + }
> #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> spin_lock_bh(&fib_multipath_lock);
> fi->fib_power -= nexthop_nh->nh_power;
> @@ -1139,14 +1160,22 @@ int fib_sync_down_dev(struct net_device *dev, int
> force)
> dead++;
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH
> - if (force > 1 && nexthop_nh->nh_dev == dev) {
> + if (event == NETDEV_UNREGISTER && nexthop_nh->nh_dev
> == dev) {
> dead = fi->fib_nhs;
> break;
> }
> #endif
> } endfor_nexthops(fi)
> if (dead == fi->fib_nhs) {
> - fi->fib_flags |= RTNH_F_DEAD;
> + switch (event) {
> + case NETDEV_DOWN:
> + case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
> + fi->fib_flags |= RTNH_F_DEAD;
> + /* fall through */
> + case NETDEV_CHANGE:
> + fi->fib_flags |= RTNH_F_LINKDOWN;
RTNH_F_LINKDOWN is to mark linkdown nexthop devs....why is the route
fi being marked RTNH_F_LINKDOWN?
The RTNH_F_LINKDOWN comment says:
#define RTNH_F_LINKDOWN 16 /* carrier-down on nexthop */
It's a per-nh flag, not per-route flag, correct?
Can you show an ECMP example with only a subset of the nexthops dev
linkdowned? Show the ip route output after going thru some link
down/up events on some of the nexthops devs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
