From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] ip_tunnel: Ops registration for secondary encap (fou, gue) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:11:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20141112.151129.856876397234334953.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1415822049-24978-1-git-send-email-therbert@google.com> <20141112.150349.1546991259336520485.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org To: therbert@google.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:46153 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753228AbaKLULb (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:11:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:07:19 -0800 > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:03 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Tom Herbert >> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:54:09 -0800 >> >>> Instead of calling fou and gue functions directly from ip_tunnel >>> use ops for these that were previously registered. This patch adds the >>> logic to add and remove encapsulation operations for ip_tunnel, >>> and modified fou (and gue) to register with ip_tunnels. >>> >>> This patch also addresses a circular dependency between ip_tunnel >>> and fou that was causing link errors when CONFIG_NET_IP_TUNNEL=y >>> and CONFIG_NET_FOU=m. References to fou an gue have been removed from >>> ip_tunnel.c >>> >>> Reported-by: Randy Dunlap >>> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert >> >> Applied, please in the future be explicit about the target tree by >> saying "[PATCH net-next]" or similar in your Subj. >> >> I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've had to ask this of >> you. :-/ >> > I was unsure which branch to target since the bug was reported in > linux-next. Is next-next appropriate in this case? Tom, this code doesn't even exist in the 'net' tree, how could it possibly apply to anything other than 'net-next'?