On 6/17/15, 8:35 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
@@ -1189,8 +1190,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct fib_config *cfg) fib_release_info(fi_drop); if (state & FA_S_ACCESSED) rt_cache_flush(cfg->fc_nlinfo.nl_net); + nlflags |= NLM_F_REPLACE;rtmsg_fib(RTM_NEWROUTE, htonl(key), new_fa, plen, - tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, NLM_F_REPLACE);+ tb->tb_id, &cfg->fc_nlinfo, nlflags); goto succeeded;Why even bother modifying this part? Is this actually needed at all, are there some other flags you plan to drop into nlflags as well that would be passed as a part of this message?
agreed, for the same reason my initial patch did not touch this part. Nope, no other flags. I was trying to meet scotts concerns.
@@ -1201,7 +1203,9 @@ int fib_table_insert(struct fib_table *tb, struct fib_config *cfg) if (fa_match) goto out; - if (!(cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND)) + if (cfg->fc_nlflags & NLM_F_APPEND) + nlflags |= NLM_F_APPEND; + else fa = fa_first; } err = -ENOENT;I'm not sure I see the point of using the |=. Why not just use a = and save yourself an instruction or two since you don't really need the OR operator in this case.
ack, I would prefer keeping my initial patch which was pretty non-intrusive. thanks, Roopa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
