On 28/07/15 07:40, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
From: Roopa Prabhu <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com>
Undefined reference to ip6_route_output and ip_route_output
was reported with CONFIG_INET=n and CONFIG_IPV6=n.
This patch adds new CONFIG_MPLS_NEXTHOP_DEVLOOKUP
to lookup nexthop device if user has not specified it
in RTA_OIF attribute. Make CONFIG_MPLS_NEXTHOP_DEVLOOKUP
depend on INET and (IPV6 || IPV6=n) because it
uses ip6_route_output and ip_route_output.
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang...@intel.com>
Reported-by: Thomas Graf <tg...@suug.ch>
Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com>
Is there a compelling reason to allow the user/applications to not
specify the output interface and to derive it from the nexthop? If the
user/application intends to treat this as a recursive route then it has
to make sure to trigger route updates to the kernel anyway, and an
application should have the output interface and real nexthop close to
hand in that case.
If there isn't a compelling reason, then perhaps the best course of
action is to revert the commit, instead of introducing a level of config
complexity that means that users/applications may not be able to rely on
this capability anyway?
Thanks,
Rob
--
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
