From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wangyufen Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] ipv6: reuse rt6_need_strict Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:04:52 +0800 Message-ID: <53353B34.1040700@huawei.com> References: <1395979303-7668-1-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com> <1395979303-7668-3-git-send-email-wangyufen@huawei.com> <20140328074110.GC11063@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , , Return-path: Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.64]:19141 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750972AbaC1JF1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 05:05:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140328074110.GC11063@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2014/3/28 15:41, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:01:42PM +0800, Wangyufen wrote: >> From: Wang Yufen >> >> Modify the rt6_need_strict, so that it can be reused >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen >> --- >> include/net/ip6_route.h | 1 + >> net/ipv6/route.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/net/ip6_route.h b/include/net/ip6_route.h >> index 00e3f12..d9c316e 100644 >> --- a/include/net/ip6_route.h >> +++ b/include/net/ip6_route.h >> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ static inline unsigned int rt6_flags2srcprefs(int flags) >> return (flags >> 3) & 7; >> } >> >> +bool rt6_need_strict(const struct in6_addr *daddr); >> >> void ip6_route_input(struct sk_buff *skb); >> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c >> index fba54a4..f5fdccc 100644 >> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c >> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c >> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static bool rt6_check_expired(const struct rt6_info *rt) >> return false; >> } >> >> -static bool rt6_need_strict(const struct in6_addr *daddr) >> +bool rt6_need_strict(const struct in6_addr *daddr) >> { >> return ipv6_addr_type(daddr) & >> (IPV6_ADDR_MULTICAST | IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL | IPV6_ADDR_LOOPBACK); > > Just a small suggestion: > I think we can move the whole function as static inline into the header. > Yes, thanks a lot! I'll modify the patch. > Thanks, > > Hannes > > >