On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 00:05, David Miller wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org>
> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:58:37 +0200
>
> > +static inline u32 ipv4_idev_rt_table(const struct net_device *dev)
> > +{
> > + u32 table_id;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + table_id = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev)->rt_table_id;
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + return table_id != RT_TABLE_UNSPEC ? table_id : RT_TABLE_LOCAL;
> > +}
>
> It's a real shame you have to do all of this RCU locking and inetdev
> deref, because in more than half of the call sites the idev is already
> available.
I agree, I was not happy with that either.
It is easy to move the rt_table_id to net_device and use the same one
for IPv6.
This would force people to build symmetric routing configurations. I was
striving for
maximum flexibility first but I don't really think this matters here.
Bye,
Hannes
--
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
