On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Brian Haley <brian.haley@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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. He :) Still, I think my original interpretation was correct? It's always used with constant values and there are many usages similar to this: skb->protocol = __constant_htons(ETH_P_802_3); Someone feel free to correct me. >>> 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 Yep, it's too big, I know :) And reworking the complete patch into a sane series didn't really work out that well because everything is so interdependent. Sometimes it might even be easier to look at the complete, big patch... > separate patch is probably a good idea though. Yeah, should be easy. I'll look at it (if there is any interest). Julius -- Google Switzerland GmbH -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
