On 07/06/2019 19:55, Tom Herbert wrote:
-#define SR6_TLV_PADDING 4
From a uapi perspective, should we rather keep the definition and mark it as obsoleted as for the rest of the TLV types ?
Note that I'm fine with both.
- [RFC v2 PATCH 0/5] seg6: Segment routing fixes Tom Herbert
- [RFC v2 PATCH 2/5] seg6: Obsolete unused SRH flags Tom Herbert
- [RFC v2 PATCH 1/5] seg6: Fix TLV definitions Tom Herbert
- Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 1/5] seg6: Fix TLV definitions David Lebrun
- Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 1/5] seg6: Fix TLV definitions Tom Herbert
- [RFC v2 PATCH 3/5] ipv6: Paramterize TLV parsing Tom Herbert
- Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 3/5] ipv6: Paramterize TLV parsing David Lebrun
- [RFC v2 PATCH 5/5] seg6: Leverage ip6_parse_tlv Tom Herbert
- Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 5/5] seg6: Leverage ip6_parse_tlv David Lebrun
- [RFC v2 PATCH 4/5] seg6: Add sysctl limits for segment r... Tom Herbert
- Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/5] seg6: Segment routing fixes David Lebrun
- Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 0/5] seg6: Segment routing fixes Edward Cree
