Darren Reed wrote: > In various places, we have a call, ire_to_ill() to map an ire to > the appropriate ill for outgoing packets. For any given ire, the > choice of the ill should be somewhat static and be associated > with the ire_stq. Given that we already have ire_in_ill, is there > any reason not to also have ire_out_ill?
Note: ire_in_ill is a Mobile IP specific thing, and is being removed: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~seb/rm_mobileip_webrev/ This shouldn't deter you from adding ire_ill for other reasons; I'm only updating the discussion with current developments. :-) > Or is this optimisation not worth the trouble? I'm not sure how much of an optimization this really is. ire_to_ill() doesn't do very much... > Furthermore, if we maintain both an > ire_out_ill and ire_in_ill field in the ire_t, is there any need for > there to be a function ire_to_ill()? The logic currently in ire_to_ill() needs to live somewhere, if only to initially set ire_ill. It might as well stay contained in one function. -Seb _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
