On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 04:54:35PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 8/3/17 4:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > But unlike the percpu flag, don't we want to somehow propagate offload
> > state to the user?
>
> It's a per nexthop flag. For IPv4 it is tracked in fib_nh.nh_flags.
> Perhaps it is time for r
On 8/3/17 4:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
> But unlike the percpu flag, don't we want to somehow propagate offload
> state to the user?
It's a per nexthop flag. For IPv4 it is tracked in fib_nh.nh_flags.
Perhaps it is time for rt6_info to have nh_flags as well.
>
> I'm sure whatever we decide Jiri
From: David Ahern
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:39:54 -0600
> On 8/3/17 4:36 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jiri Pirko
>> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:28:10 +0200
>>
>>> This set adds support for IPv6 unicast routes offload.
>>
>> Series applied, thanks.
>>
>
> I take it you disagree with my comme
On 8/3/17 4:36 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko
> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:28:10 +0200
>
>> This set adds support for IPv6 unicast routes offload.
>
> Series applied, thanks.
>
I take it you disagree with my comment on patch 10 about the RTF_OFFLOAD
flag? that is a nexthop flag and
From: Jiri Pirko
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:28:10 +0200
> This set adds support for IPv6 unicast routes offload.
Series applied, thanks.
From: Jiri Pirko
Ido says:
This set adds support for IPv6 unicast routes offload. The first four
patches make the FIB notification chain generic so that it could be used
by address families other than IPv4. This is done by having each address
family register its callbacks with the common code, s
