From: Shaohua Li <s...@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 12:30:27 -0700
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:10:38AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Shaohua Li <s...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > +/* Like ip6_make_flowlabel, but already has hash */
>> > +static inline __be32 ip6_make_flowlabel_from_hash(struct net *net,
>> > + bool autolabel, u32 hash)
>> > +{
>> > + __be32 flowlabel;
>> > +
>> > + if (net->ipv6.sysctl.auto_flowlabels == IP6_AUTO_FLOW_LABEL_OFF ||
>> > + (!autolabel &&
>> > + net->ipv6.sysctl.auto_flowlabels !=
>> > IP6_AUTO_FLOW_LABEL_FORCED))
>> > + return 0;
>> > +
>> > + flowlabel = (__force __be32)hash & IPV6_FLOWLABEL_MASK;
>> > +
>> > + if (net->ipv6.sysctl.flowlabel_state_ranges)
>> > + flowlabel |= IPV6_FLOWLABEL_STATELESS_FLAG;
>> > +
>> > + return flowlabel;
>> > +}
>>
>> I still don't see why you have to duplicate the code,
>> for me you can just refactor ip6_make_flowlabel()
>> and pass the hash as a parameter and pass
>> 'flowlabel' as 0, and no run-time overhead.
>
> Still need extra check. Ok, I updated the patch.
This is not how you post a new version of a patch.
It is especially not the way to post a new version of a patch which is
part of a series.
You always must make a clean, fresh, patch posting. Not as a reply to
a discussion email.
And when the patch is part of a series, you must repost the entire
series along with the "[PATCH ... 0/N] " header posting.
