Jiri Benc wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:27:22 +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote: >>> You're right generally. But this one should be okay and I did this >>> deliberately: the patch adding LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_ILA was merged two days >>> ago, is in net-next only, is not used by anything in user space yet. >>> And I think it's better to have LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP and >>> LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6 without anything in between. >> >> I do think you should have some descriptions. > > Sorry, I meant to put this into the description but forget to add it > after the rebase on top of ILA (as the patchset conflicted with the ILA > work and was developed in parallel). > > Are you okay with inserting LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6 before > LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_ILA? If so, I'll resend with the explanation added.
Well, I think we should always avoid adding new entries into the middle of enums because it will make bisecting more complex or more difficult for example even if it *seems* that we have no users yet and the risk is not so high. Dave? -- Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshif...@miraclelinux.com> Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION -- 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
