On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Ansis Atteka wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:16:47AM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Ansis Atteka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > This patch prepares ipv6_find_hdr() function so that it could be > >> > able to skip routing headers, where segements_left is 0. This is > >> > required for us to handle multiple routing header case correctly. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Ansis Atteka <[email protected]> > >> > >> > >> This looks like a good approach to me. > > > > But why does it rename the constants added in the previous patch? > > Those constants came from iptables. I thought that the compatibility > code should use some other names so that symbolds wouldn't collide by > chance. > > Or maybe you are asking, why I did not rename the constants already in > the first patch?
Right, that's the part that seems odd to me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
