From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Duan Jiong Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: remove the unnecessary statement in find_match() Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:02:11 +0800 Message-ID: <5271F263.4020800@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <5270B7AE.9020801@cn.fujitsu.com> <20131030.170837.1882918923249091614.davem@davemloft.net> <20131030211157.GA13902@order.stressinduktion.org> <20131031.002234.45924350853188128.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: hannes@stressinduktion.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:2535 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750845Ab3JaGEi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 02:04:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20131031.002234.45924350853188128.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E4=BA=8E 2013=E5=B9=B410=E6=9C=8831=E6=97=A5 12:22, David Miller =E5=86= =99=E9=81=93: > From: Hannes Frederic Sowa > Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:11:57 +0100 >=20 >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 05:08:37PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Duan Jiong >>> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:39:26 +0800 >>> >>>> >>>> After reading the function rt6_check_neigh(), we can >>>> know that the RT6_NUD_FAIL_SOFT can be returned only >>>> when the IS_ENABLE(CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF) is false. >>>> so in function find_match(), there is no need to execute >>>> the statement !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong >>> >>> Applied to net-next, thanks. >>> >>> CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF is another good candidate for Kconfig >>> removal. I know we've had several bugs that only apply when >>> this option is on vs. off. We're maintaining two different >>> code paths, for really no good reason. >> >> I agree and actually thought about that yesterday. Do you think a sy= sctl >> is a good option? >=20 > Every distribution ships with the Kconfig option on, and no sysctl > exists currently to control it. >=20 > So I'd say it's not necessary at all, or at the very least let's have > someone come forward with a real rather than theoretical use case for > such a feature before adding it. >=20 > Actually, if RFC 4191 has the usual language like "there SHOULD be > an administrative mechanism to disable blah blah blah" I could > be convinced to add it now. Can someone take a look? It seems that there is no such an administrative mechanism in RFC 4191. By the way, if the sysctl is used, we are still maintaining two differe= nt code paths, isn't it? so i think David's idea is good. Thanks, Duan >=20 > Either way it'd probably be a per-inet6_dev option, right? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >=20