[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190328112718.w7uyomw6lh5cfdhe@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 12:27:18 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 04/11] xfrm: remove output indirection from
xfrm_mode
Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net> wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> 2019-03-27, 18:31:33 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c
> > index 9333153bafda..01eb142ba6d0 100644
> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c
> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c
> [snip]
> > +static int xfrm4_prepare_output(struct xfrm_state *x, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +{
>
> Why no #if IS_ENABLED here? (and in xfrm6_prepare_output)
I don't know what IS_ENABLED() conditional makes sense here.
This is coming from xfrm4_output.c which only depends on CONFIG_XFRM.
I'll add IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) for xfrm6_prepare_output in v2.
> > +static int xfrm_outer_mode_output(struct xfrm_state *x, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +{
> > + switch (x->outer_mode->encap) {
> > + case XFRM_MODE_BEET:
> > + case XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL:
> > + if (x->outer_mode->family == AF_INET)
> > + return xfrm4_prepare_output(x, skb);
> > + if (x->outer_mode->family == AF_INET6)
> > + return xfrm6_prepare_output(x, skb);
>
> Missing "break;" here?
[..]
> Missing "break;" here too?
Indeed, added, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists