Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Don't protect ip_vs_addr_is_unicast with CONFIG_SYSCTL

To: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipvs: Don't protect ip_vs_addr_is_unicast with CONFIG_SYSCTL
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:55:46 +0900
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:45:28PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>       Hello,
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I arranged the code so that the compiler can remove the unecessary bits
> > in ip_vs_leave when CONFIG_SYSCTL is unset, and removed an explicit
> > 
> > Unfortunately when rebasing my work on top of that of Alex Gartrell I
> > missed the fact that the newly added function ip_vs_addr_is_unicast was
> > surrounded by CONFIG_SYSCTL.
> > 
> > So remove the now unnecessary CONFIG_SYSCTL guards around
> > ip_vs_addr_is_unicast.  It is causing build failures today when
> > CONFIG_SYSCTL is not selected and any self respecting compiler will
> > notice that sysctl_cache_bypass is always false without CONFIG_SYSCTL
> > and not include the logic from the function ip_vs_addr_is_unicast in
> > the compiled code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
>       Simon, please apply to ipvs-next

Thanks, applied.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>