Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost> writes: > On 14/12/2014 22:23, David Young wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:57:58PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >>> Why doesn't RTM_ADD get sent for ND entries in the table? I don't see >>> why a new message is needed. Or is this about some later state >>> transition from them just being added, because the later transition is >>> what matters. >> >> I'd also like to know why RTM_ADD isn't sent for the new neighbors. > > Because there is no code to notify userland! What I meant was "why don't you send RTM_ADD instead of creating a new message type". Sorry if that was unclear. > Here is a new patch where all route changes are notified to userland: > * RTM_ADD for new neighbour cache entry > * RTM_CHANGE for an updated cache entry > * RTM_DEL for a deleted neighbour cache entry > > Using this I can then detect host route additions/changes/deletions and > take action in dhcpcd accordingly. After all, I only care if I can reach > the router or not, I don't care about the neighbour state as such. > > Would this patch be preferable? I'm guessing yes it would. > Comments welcome. Yes, this seem good to me.
Attachment:
pgpw3ltOD1P9A.pgp
Description: PGP signature