Hello, On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > Make sure rt6i_gateway contains nexthop information in > > all routes returned from lookup or when routes are directly > > attached to skb for generated ICMP packets. > > > > The effect of this patch should be a faster version of > > rt6_nexthop() and the consideration of local addresses as > > nexthop. > > > > Signed-off-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> > > The patch is fine. I don't mind if we leave it as is or remove rt6_nexthop, > so: > > Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for the review! I don't mind too about removing rt6_nexthop. For me it is 51% against 49% to keep it as it denotes the places that use nexthop and not gateway. May be more opinions will help to decide because I don't know if there are any plans to use similar techniques as done for IPv4. Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx> -- 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
