On 11/15/16, 7:18 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: David Lebrun <david.leb...@uclouvain.be> > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:17:20 +0100 > >> On 11/14/2016 03:22 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote: >>> I prefer option b). most LWTUNNEL encaps are done this way. >>> >>> seg6 and seg6_iptunnel is new segment routing code and can be under >>> CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6 which depends on CONFIG_LWTUNNEL and CONFIG_IPV6. >>> CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6_HMAC could then depend on CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6 >> Will do that, thanks > This is good for the time being. > > Although I'd like to entertain the idea of making LWTUNNEL > unconditionally built and considered a fundamental piece of > networking infrastructure just like net/core/dst.c ok, ack. I can submit a patch for that. But, I had the lwtunnel infra hooks in CONFIG_LWTUNNEL to reduce the cost of hooks in the default fast path when it was not enabled. Will need to re-evaluate the cost of the hooks in the default fast-path.
I am assuming you are ok with various encaps staying in their respective configs (mpls iptunnels, ila, and now ipv6 segment routing). thanks
