From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] ipv6: don't walk node's leaf during serial number update Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 20:02:54 +0200 Message-ID: <1412618574.3403.29.camel@localhost> References: <60321af8a7305bec398e62858ef53bb6605878fb.1412585163.git.hannes@stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev , hideaki@yoshifuji.org, kafai@fb.com To: Cong Wang Return-path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:46362 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752080AbaJFSC4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:02:56 -0400 Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by gateway2.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EDB208E1 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 14:02:55 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mo, 2014-10-06 at 10:58 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > wrote: > > @@ -105,6 +106,10 @@ static int fib6_new_sernum(struct net *net) > > return new; > > } > > > > +enum { > > + FIB6_NO_SERNUM_CHANGE = 0, > > +}; > > + > > Not sure if it worth an enum definition... seems overkill for me. Yeah, maybe, I was used to do it like that in user space because of debuggers. I think it is ok, also I just send v2 with your proposed changes. If you have a strong opinion about that, let me know. ;) Thanks a lot for the review, Hannes