Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493, try2

2007-10-11 Thread David Miller
From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:49:14 -0700 > Acked-by: David L Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Applied, thanks everyone! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://

Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493, try2

2007-10-11 Thread David Stevens
Acked-by: David L Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c > index 532425d..1334fc1 100644 > --- a/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c > +++ b/net/ipv6/ipv6_sockglue.c > @@ -539,12 +539,15 @@ done: >

[IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493, try2

2007-10-11 Thread Brian Haley
Hi, From RFC 3493, Section 5.2: IPV6_MULTICAST_IF Set the interface to use for outgoing multicast packets. The argument is the index of the interface to use. If the interface index is specified as zero, the system selects the interface (for example, b

Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493

2007-10-10 Thread YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:42:56 -0700 (PDT)), David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:48:38 -0700 > > > But anyway, I made the comment; I think some form of it > > should go in. :-) If you like the

Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493

2007-10-10 Thread David Miller
From: David Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:48:38 -0700 > But anyway, I made the comment; I think some form of it > should go in. :-) If you like the original better, that's > ok with me, too. Brian, please submit a new patch or resubmit the original one, the choice is your'

Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493

2007-10-10 Thread David Stevens
Brian Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/10/2007 02:20:45 PM: > David Stevens wrote: > > What about just checking for 0 in the later test? > > > > if (val && __dev_get_by_index(val) == NULL) { > > We could fail the next check right before that though: Right, the semantics the

Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493

2007-10-10 Thread Brian Haley
David Stevens wrote: What about just checking for 0 in the later test? if (val && __dev_get_by_index(val) == NULL) { We could fail the next check right before that though: if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if && sk->sk_bound_dev_if != val) goto e_inval; I just mimicked

Re: [IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493

2007-10-10 Thread David Stevens
What about just checking for 0 in the later test? if (val && __dev_get_by_index(val) == NULL) { ... +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at htt

[IPv6] Update setsockopt(IPV6_MULTICAST_IF) to support RFC 3493

2007-10-10 Thread Brian Haley
Hi, From RFC 3493, Section 5.2: IPV6_MULTICAST_IF Set the interface to use for outgoing multicast packets. The argument is the index of the interface to use. If the interface index is specified as zero, the system selects the interface (for example, b