From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:17:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:17:29 -0500 Received: from rth.ninka.net ([216.101.162.244]:62084 "EHLO rth.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:17:27 -0500 Subject: From: "David S. Miller" To: Neil Brown Cc: Herbert Xu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Alexey N. Kuznetsov" In-Reply-To: <15949.40369.601166.550803@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> References: <15949.40369.601166.550803@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 17 Feb 2003 23:10:37 -0800 Message-Id: <1045552237.4501.8.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 17:53, Neil Brown wrote: > No. > My application (which is just using standard rpc server libraries) is > saying > "This is in reply to a request that came in through a given > interface". > > It is not reasonable to treat that statement as equivalent to: > "This packet must go out that interface" > > which is what appears to be happening. You misunderstand what this control message knob means during a sendmsg() then, it means "send this over interface X" There is no other valid expectation. I'm curious where you read something that would suggest otherwise for sendmsg() behavior wrt. ip_pktinfo