On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 05:03:44PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Diff below removes the 'struct route_in6' argument from in6_selectsrc().
>
> It is only used by in6_pcbselsrc() so move the code there. This reduces
> differences with IPv4 and help me to get rid of 'struct route*'.
This changes
> On 02.12.2016, at 11:31, Reyk Floeter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 01.12.2016, at 08:35, Vincent Gross wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:03:44 +0100
>> Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>>
>>> Diff below removes the 'struct route_in6' argument from
>>> in6_selectsrc().
>>>
>>> It is only used by in6_pcbsels
> On 01.12.2016, at 08:35, Vincent Gross wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:03:44 +0100
> Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>
>> Diff below removes the 'struct route_in6' argument from
>> in6_selectsrc().
>>
>> It is only used by in6_pcbselsrc() so move the code there. This
>> reduces differences with I
Hi,
> I think we should not allow at all empty source addresses, as it can
> make things confusing when troubleshooting. goda@ yasuoka@ reyk@ :
> what is your take on this ?
I have the same opinion of you. Since tunneling protocol like vxlan
(or etherip) is used with statically assigned IP addre
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:03:44 +0100
Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Diff below removes the 'struct route_in6' argument from
> in6_selectsrc().
>
> It is only used by in6_pcbselsrc() so move the code there. This
> reduces differences with IPv4 and help me to get rid of 'struct
> route*'.
>
> ok?
Reads
Diff below removes the 'struct route_in6' argument from in6_selectsrc().
It is only used by in6_pcbselsrc() so move the code there. This reduces
differences with IPv4 and help me to get rid of 'struct route*'.
ok?
Index: net/if_vxlan.c
===
