From: David Newall <davidn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:43:16 +0930 > On 31/05/14 10:16, David Miller wrote: >> I don't see why you don't simply keep br_parse_ip_options() around >> and adjust it as you need, you're just mostly duplicating it's >> contents into br_nf_pre_routing(). > > More accurately, I'm *restoring* br_parse_ip_options()'s contents to > br_nf_pre_routing(). The reasons why are twofold: I'm undoing a > change which turns out to have been a mistake; and leaving it largely > as-is, just removing the call to ip_options_compile(), would be > confusing in that the name (br_pase_ip_options()) gives an expectation > of function that would be untrue. > > I can see an argument in favour of leaving br_parse_options() around, > being that it is called from three places, and thus restoring the code > removes checks which are currently being performed. They weren't > being performed before and it's not clear that they are needed, but if > you say that it would be better, I'll leave it around and just remove > the call to ip_options_compile(). Just say the word. You can rename the function to something more suitable. Because then it's just a handful of line changes rather than a huge bunch of hunks which are harder to audit.
