From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Duan Jiong Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ipv6:introduce function to find route for redirect Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 14:07:59 +0800 Message-ID: <52242B3F.6030402@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <52217A8D.9010008@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130901210825.GD19455@order.stressinduktion.org> <5223FA1C.5020501@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hannes@stressinduktion.org Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:19652 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752726Ab3IBGIl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2013 02:08:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5223FA1C.5020501@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E4=BA=8E 2013=E5=B9=B409=E6=9C=8802=E6=97=A5 10:38, Duan Jiong =E5=86=99= =E9=81=93: >>> void ip6_redirect(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net *net, int oif, u= 32 mark) >> >> Maybe we should rename oif to iif now? > Yes, that looks no ambiguity. I'm sorry about that. I finally think that there is no need to rename oif to iif, because the argument oif will be assigned to fl6.flowi6_oif, and if we rename it, others will be confused by this. Thanks, Duan=20