On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:42:01 +0000, Robert Shearman wrote:
> +static const char *lwtunnel_encap_str(enum lwtunnel_encap_types encap_type)
> +{
> + switch (encap_type) {
> + case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_MPLS:
> + return "LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_MPLS";
> + case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP:
> + return "LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP";
> + case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_ILA:
> + return "LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_ILA";
> + case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6:
> + return "LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6";
> + case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_NONE:
> + case __LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_MAX:
> + /* should not have got here */
> + break;
> + }
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + return "LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_NONE";
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MODULES */
> +
> struct lwtunnel_state *lwtunnel_state_alloc(int encap_len)
> {
> struct lwtunnel_state *lws;
> @@ -85,6 +109,14 @@ int lwtunnel_build_state(struct net_device *dev, u16
> encap_type,
> ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> rcu_read_lock();
> ops = rcu_dereference(lwtun_encaps[encap_type]);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
> + if (!ops) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + request_module("rtnl-lwt-%s", lwtunnel_encap_str(encap_type));
Why the repeating of "lwt"/"LWTUNNEL" and the unnecessary "ENCAP"?
Wouldn't be lwtunnel_encap_str returning just "MPLS" or "ILA" enough?
I don't have any strong preference here, it just looks weird to me.
Maybe there's a reason.
Also, this doesn't affect IP lwtunnels, i.e. LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP and
LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6. Should we just return NULL from lwtunnel_encap_str
in such cases (plus unknown encap_type) and WARN on the NULL here?
Jiri
--
Jiri Benc
