[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4A265D43-913E-449E-8BA0-80A2B6930AD6@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:55:31 +0800
From: 严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ip_tunnel: enclose a code block in macro IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> On May 24, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 10:39 +0800, Haishuang Yan wrote:
>> For ipv6 case, enclose the code block in macro IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6).
>>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Place the "#if IS_ENABLED" block before the "} else if
>> (..) {" piece and the "#endif" before the closing brace and this
>> becomes much easier to look at.
>
> _Why_ is this patch needed ?
>
> Please describe in the changelog what _actual_ problem you are trying to
> address.
>
> We have many points in the kernel using ipv6_get_dsfield() even if
> CONFIG_IPV6=n, and it seems fine to me at least.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
Yes, you’re right, but I think add this patch seems more reasonable in coding.
Thanks for your reviewing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists