> This is a good point I forgot. Do you think it would add too much overhead
> if a "JUNK" flag could be added that is tested by rt_fast_clean() ?
Seems, this flag (or even number) is necessary.
And for IPv6 too, so that route "value" probably should be
placed in dst_entry.
> There are unfortunately no RTCF_* bits left (except for maybe RTCF_NOTIFY,
BTW routes with RTCF_NOTIFY should be purged last. 8)
At least, they have maximal value. It is supposed
that kernel should send notifications every time when such
route becomes stale. I still did not implement it
neither in pimd nor in rsvpd, so that this place is reserved
for future.
> There are no reports yet about problems caused by this, but I generally
> think it is better to fix potential problems before they get exploited
> in production.
Certainly, you are right. Especially, if we had more hands
and less real problems 8)
Alexey
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html