From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: remove the unnecessary statement in find_match() Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:45:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20131031084537.GA17210@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <5270B7AE.9020801@cn.fujitsu.com> <20131030.170837.1882918923249091614.davem@davemloft.net> <20131030211157.GA13902@order.stressinduktion.org> <20131031.002234.45924350853188128.davem@davemloft.net> <5271F263.4020800@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Duan Jiong Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:40542 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750703Ab3JaIpj (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:45:39 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5271F263.4020800@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 02:02:11PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote: > =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 = sysctl > >> 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 ha= ve > > someone come forward with a real rather than theoretical use case f= or > > 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? >=20 > It seems that there is no such an administrative mechanism in RFC 419= 1. >=20 > By the way, if the sysctl is used, we are still maintaining two diffe= rent > code paths, isn't it? so i think David's idea is good. Makes life easier, no objections from me. Greetings, Hannes