Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2 1/3] lwt: infrastructure to support light weight tunnels

[Robert Shearman <rshearma@brocade.com>]

On 19/06/15 19:34, roopa wrote:
> On 6/19/15, 10:25 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>> n 19/06/15 16:14, roopa wrote:
>>> Today lwtunnel_skb_lwstate is called from lwtunnel_output which is only
>>> called from ipv4 code.
>>> And my ipv6 variant code was supposed to have a 6 suffix. something like
>>> lwtunnel_output6.
>>> Or to be more explicit i will probably have variants of the output and
>>> skb handling functions like,
>>> lwtunnel_output_ipv4 and lwtunnel_output_ipv6.
>>
>> Do you intend for these functions to be used by netdevices to support
>> the vxlan use case?
>>
>> If so, then how will the netdevice know which one of the two to call?
>> Will there have to be a netdevice for ipv4 and a netdevice for ipv6?
>>
>> If not, could you outline how you intend for it to be implemented?
>
> In the netdevice case, this output function is not called atall. It
> should just follow the existing netdevice the route is pointing to.

Sorry for not being clear, but I meant that there would have to be 
lwtunnel_skb_lwstate functions for ipv4 and ipv6 to match the output 
functions. So in the vxlan use case where it's using a netdevice, how 
would it determine which one to call?

Thanks,
Rob