[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF1J0HNu9i_N2AtxvKL=edsVbZpZCsJL0mh2HEfF2G28CYcHYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:36:48 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <mike.rapoport@...ellosystems.com>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v4 3/5] vxlan: add ipv6 support
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-17 at 11:15 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 01:10:20PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>> > #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
>> > @@ -42,6 +41,11 @@
>> > #include <net/inet_ecn.h>
>> > #include <net/net_namespace.h>
>> > #include <net/netns/generic.h>
>> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
>>
>> It seems to me that some of the #ifdefs may be removed, especially on
>> the rtnetlink path.
>
> Which one? If you mean the one above, I know it can be removed, but it
> can save some compile time if we have it.
Well, I think that the address comparison helpers,
vxlan_nla_{get,put}_addr, vxlan_newlink and vxlan_fill_info can be
left with run-time checks only. Maybe some other places as well.
Removing the ifdefs will increase compile time for kernels configured
with IPV6=n, and may have certain run-time performance impact for such
kernels. On the other hand, less ifdefs means better readability :).
And, AFAIK, most distros have IPV6 in their kernels anyway...
>> > +#include <net/addrconf.h>
>> > +#include <net/ip6_route.h>
>> > +#include <net/ip6_tunnel.h>
>> > +#endif
>> >
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists