From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 13/13] ipv6: route: per route IP tunnel metadata via lightweight tunnel Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:15:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20150819.221533.1044691669375994723.davem@davemloft.net> References: <55D45A0A.7010100@miraclelinux.com> <20150819123151.3802e8f3@griffin> <55D53B72.70403@miraclelinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jbenc@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, tgraf@suug.ch To: hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:52089 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751286AbbHTFPg (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 01:15:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55D53B72.70403@miraclelinux.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 11:29:06 +0900 > Jiri Benc wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:27:22 +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: >>>> You're right generally. But this one should be okay and I did this >>>> deliberately: the patch adding LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_ILA was merged two days >>>> ago, is in net-next only, is not used by anything in user space yet. >>>> And I think it's better to have LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP and >>>> LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6 without anything in between. >>> >>> I do think you should have some descriptions. >> >> Sorry, I meant to put this into the description but forget to add it >> after the rebase on top of ILA (as the patchset conflicted with the ILA >> work and was developed in parallel). >> >> Are you okay with inserting LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6 before >> LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_ILA? If so, I'll resend with the explanation added. > > Well, I think we should always avoid adding new entries into the > middle of enums because it will make bisecting more complex or more > difficult for example even if it *seems* that we have no users yet and > the risk is not so high. > > Dave? Agreed.