From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Haley Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 08/24] IPVS: Make protocol handler functions support IPv6 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:08:30 -0400 Message-ID: <48AD76DE.4030000@hp.com> References: <1219248931-15064-1-git-send-email-juliusv@google.com> <1219248931-15064-9-git-send-email-juliusv@google.com> <48AD6DBB.9030607@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, horms@verge.net.au, kaber@trash.net, vbusam@google.com To: Julius Volz Return-path: Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.46]:13981 "EHLO g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752085AbYHUOIe (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:08:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Julius Volz wrote: > I guessed from the name and other uses that __constant_htons() is just > a version of htons() optimized for values that are constant at compile > time. Is this right? But htons() is fine too in any case. I think the __constant one is for initializations. All I know is that someone (Stephen Hemminger?) always points this out in other patchsets, so I beat him to it. >> So why can't you just create one ip_vs_debug_packet_v6() instead of these ah >> and esp ones which are identical? > > If you look at the original files, the whole ip_vs_proto_ah.c and > ip_vs_proto_esp.c are 100% identical except for the protocol names / > constants :-/ So I stuck with this pattern for now. Maybe it would > make sense to join those two files in a change separate from the v6 > functionality? There's already a lot of duplication in the existing > IPVS that could be removed... I didn't look too closely, there's a lot of patches! :) Doing it in a separate patch is probably a good idea though. -Brian