>
> On 1/4/2019 1:55 AM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > /* process ipv4 packets */
> > - inbound_sp_sa(ctx->sp4_ctx, ctx->sa_ctx, &trf.ip4, 0);
> > - route4_pkts(qconf->rt4_ctx, trf.ip4.pkts, trf.ip4.num);
> > + if (trf.ip4.num != 0) {
> > + inbound_sp_sa(ctx->sp4_ctx, ctx->sa_ctx, &trf.ip4, 0);
> > + route4_pkts(qconf->rt4_ctx, trf.ip4.pkts, trf.ip4.num);
> > + }
> >
> > /* process ipv6 packets */
> > - inbound_sp_sa(ctx->sp6_ctx, ctx->sa_ctx, &trf.ip6, 0);
> > - route6_pkts(qconf->rt6_ctx, trf.ip6.pkts, trf.ip6.num);
> > + if (trf.ip6.num != 0) {
> > + inbound_sp_sa(ctx->sp6_ctx, ctx->sa_ctx, &trf.ip6, 0);
> > + route6_pkts(qconf->rt6_ctx, trf.ip6.pkts, trf.ip6.num);
> > + }
> One more thing.
> Why do you need these changes. There are multiple places where this
> change is done.
>
> route6_pkts and route4_pkts already checks that internally for 0 pkts.
> inbound_sp_sa also does that.
> These are getting called from multiple places. So it is better we add this
> check inside the function itself instead of outside it.
You right, these checks are not necessary here.
I put these extra checks to avoid unnecessary calls -
there is no guarantee that both route_pkts() and inbound_sp_sa()
will always be inlined by the compiler (they are not that small).
Konstantin
