On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Ansis Atteka wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:16:47AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Ansis Atteka <aatt...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This patch prepares ipv6_find_hdr() function so that it could be
>> >> > able to skip routing headers, where segements_left is 0. This is
>> >> > required for us to handle multiple routing header case correctly.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Ansis Atteka <aatt...@nicira.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This looks like a good approach to me.
>> >
>> > But why does it rename the constants added in the previous patch?
>>
>> Those constants came from iptables. I thought that the compatibility
>> code should use some other names so that symbolds wouldn't collide by
>> chance.
>>
>> Or maybe you are asking, why I did not rename the constants already in
>> the first patch?
>
> Right, that's the part that seems odd to me.
Yes, I have to agree, that it would make more sense from git history
perspective to rename those constants in the first patch. Will do
that.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
