On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > Make sure rt6i_gateway contains nexthop information in
> > all routes returned from lookup or when routes are directly
> > attached to skb for generated ICMP packets.
> > The effect of this patch should be a faster version of
> > rt6_nexthop() and the consideration of local addresses as
> > nexthop.
> > Signed-off-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
> The patch is fine. I don't mind if we leave it as is or remove rt6_nexthop,
> Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the review! I don't mind too about
removing rt6_nexthop. For me it is 51% against 49% to keep it
as it denotes the places that use nexthop and not gateway.
May be more opinions will help to decide because I don't know
if there are any plans to use similar techniques as done for IPv4.
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
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