On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Brian Haley <brian.haley@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Julius Volz wrote:
>> I guessed from the name and other uses that __constant_htons() is just
>> a version of htons() optimized for values that are constant at compile
>> time. Is this right? But htons() is fine too in any case.
> I think the __constant one is for initializations. All I know is that
> someone (Stephen Hemminger?) always points this out in other patchsets, so I
> beat him to it.
Still, I think my original interpretation was correct? It's always
used with constant values and there are many usages similar to this:
skb->protocol = __constant_htons(ETH_P_802_3);
Someone feel free to correct me.
>>> So why can't you just create one ip_vs_debug_packet_v6() instead of these
>>> and esp ones which are identical?
>> If you look at the original files, the whole ip_vs_proto_ah.c and
>> ip_vs_proto_esp.c are 100% identical except for the protocol names /
>> constants :-/ So I stuck with this pattern for now. Maybe it would
>> make sense to join those two files in a change separate from the v6
>> functionality? There's already a lot of duplication in the existing
>> IPVS that could be removed...
> I didn't look too closely, there's a lot of patches! :) Doing it in a
Yep, it's too big, I know :) And reworking the complete patch into a
sane series didn't really work out that well because everything is so
interdependent. Sometimes it might even be easier to look at the
complete, big patch...
> separate patch is probably a good idea though.
Yeah, should be easy. I'll look at it (if there is any interest).
Google Switzerland GmbH
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html