On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:57:42 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> @@ -43,13 +44,11 @@ struct lwtunnel_encap_ops {
>       int (*get_encap_size)(struct lwtunnel_state *lwtstate);
>       int (*cmp_encap)(struct lwtunnel_state *a, struct lwtunnel_state *b);
>       int (*xmit)(struct sk_buff *skb);
> +     void (*destroy_state)(struct lwtunnel_state *lws);
>  };

Could you add destroy_state next to build_state? Seems weird to have
those two scattered at the opposite ends of the structure. Looks good
otherwise.

Thanks,

 Jiri

Reply via email to