From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754385AbaFKWca (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:32:30 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:47654 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751800AbaFKWc2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:32:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20140611.153225.671693159592497903.davem@davemloft.net> To: milos.vyletel@gmail.com Cc: stephen@networkplumber.org, amwang@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oliver@neukum.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net, pshelar@nicira.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, mike.rapoport@ravellosystems.com, dborkman@redhat.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com, therbert@google.com, hannes@stressinduktion.org, florent.fourcot@enst-bretagne.fr, edumazet@google.com, Paul.Durrant@citrix.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch net-next 3/5] ipv6: consider net.ipv6.conf.all sysctls when making decisions From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <1402417153-2551-4-git-send-email-milos.vyletel@gmail.com> <20140610101334.565bc484@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.7 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Milos Vyletel Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:49:35 -0400 > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Stephen Hemminger > wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:19:11 -0400 >> Milos Vyletel wrote: >> >>> As it is right now net.ipv6.conf.all.* are mostly ignored and instead >>> we're only making decisions based on interface specific settings. These >>> settings are coppied from net.ipv6.conf.default and changing either all >>> or default settings have no effect. >> >> Although this is the right idea conceptually, it risks creating unhappy >> users because it changes the semantics of the API. This will probably break >> somebody's configuration. > > You're right but in this case I feel we are moving in the right > direction. While the > behavior will change in some cases this change is only adding well known ipv4 > behavior for ipv6 sysctls. In fact documentation briefly mentioned that > net.ipv6.conf.all.* should change all the interface-specific settings > but that was > not the case until now. You can't just break things on people, no matter how much you think the current behavior is "poorly designed", "inconsistent with other areas of the networking", etc. None of those things matter if you have to break things on people to "fix" it. I'm not applying this series, sorry.