On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 11:21:11PM +0100, Mathieu Xhonneux wrote:
> I'm not sure what would be the best approach here. These errors appear
> when CONFIG_IPV6=m and CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6_LWTUNNEL=y (which is bool and
> depends on IPv6, hence it is also modularized in this case), then
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_
I'm not sure what would be the best approach here. These errors appear
when CONFIG_IPV6=m and CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6_LWTUNNEL=y (which is bool and
depends on IPv6, hence it is also modularized in this case), then
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6_SEG6_LWTUNNEL) returns true, even though the
seg6_* symbols are not a
Hi Mathieu,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Mathieu-Xhonneux/ipv6-sr-introduce-seg6local-End-BPF-action/20180506-233046
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-
Hi Mathieu,
Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on bpf-next/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Mathieu-Xhonneux/ipv6-sr-introduce-seg6local-End-BPF-action/20180506-233046
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-
The BPF seg6local hook should be powerful enough to enable users to
implement most of the use-cases one could think of. After some thinking,
we figured out that the following actions should be possible on a SRv6
packet, requiring 3 specific helpers :
- bpf_lwt_seg6_store_bytes: Modify non-sensi
