On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:21:19 -0800, Pravin Shelar wrote: >> One additional variable is not bad but look at what has happened in >> vxlan_xmit_one(). There are already more than 20 variables defined. It >> is hard to read code in this case. > > I agree that the function is horrible. > > What I was thinking about was separating the vxlan data and control > plane. The vxlan data plane would perform encapsulation and > decapsulation based on lwtunnel infrastructure and the rest of the > "classical" vxlan would be just one of the users of that. Basically > replacing vxlan_rdst by ip_tunnel_info, among other things. > > That would make the vxlan code much much cleaner. > I have patch which does something similar for geneve. But it is tricky to do it for vxlan.
>> anyways I can add another variable to the function. I do not feel that >> strongly about this. > > Me neither, actually. I prefer another variable but I won't oppose the > patchset just based on that if you choose differently. > I have updated patches already. I will post it soon.
