On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:15:57PM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:20:00PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > > When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event
> > > we should not del
Hello,
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:20:00PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event
> > we should not delete the local routes if the local address
> > is still present. The confusion co
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 09:20:00PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event
> we should not delete the local routes if the local address
> is still present. The confusion comes from the fact that both
> fib_netdev_event and fib_inetaddr_event
When fib_netdev_event calls fib_disable_ip on NETDEV_DOWN event
we should not delete the local routes if the local address
is still present. The confusion comes from the fact that both
fib_netdev_event and fib_inetaddr_event use the NETDEV_DOWN
constant. Fix it by returning back the variable 'force
