From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ipv6, route: remove BACKTRACK() macro
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:19:22 +0800
Message-ID: <1347326362.30731.9.camel@cr0>
References: <1347281326-26890-1-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com>
	 <1347281326-26890-2-git-send-email-amwang@redhat.com>
	 <20120910.163229.421777922179988802.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19241 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752010Ab2IKBT1 (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:19:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20120910.163229.421777922179988802.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 16:32 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:48:45 +0800
> 
> > It doesn't save any code, nor it helps readability.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com>
> 
> I'm not applying this.
> 
> Having two copies of the same exact logic means we will accumulate
> bugs in the future if someone fixes the problem only in one
> copy.

Makes sense, but BACKTRACK() is not well written, as it jumps out of its
definition. :(

Thanks.