netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/1] ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, joe@...ches.com, bernat@...fy.cx,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/1] ipv6: add support of equal cost
 multipath (ECMP)


Why do you go through all of the effort to create a nice
abstraction in a header file:

> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPATH
> +static inline unsigned int
> +ipv6_multipath_get_nsiblings(const struct rt6_info *rt)
> +{
> +	return rt->rt6i_nsiblings;
> +}
 ...

Only to screw it up by still plopping ifdef crap into foo.c files?

> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPATH
> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rt->rt6i_siblings);
> +#endif
> +		ipv6_multipath_reset_nsiblings(rt);

I really don't want to see these ifdefs.

And if they are unavoidable, remove this configure option
altogether and make the code unconditionally included.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html