Re: [23/*] [IPV4] Kill remaining unnecessary uses of dst_pmtu

["David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:19:18 +1100
Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Once again here is a couple of trivial dst_pmtu/dst_mtu replacements.
> In both locations, we can only have simple dst entries which means
> that dst == dst->path.
> 
> BTW, this is the rule that we should apply in future for uses of
> dst_mtu/dst_pmtu (or other metrics on dst).  If the only dst's that
> can appear are simple dst's (dst == dst->path), then we should use
> dst_mtu or dst_metric.  If dst != dst->path, then whoever is writing
> the code will need to think about which of dst or dst->path is the
> right one.
> 
> In most instances dst will be the one.  However, as we have seen in
> ip_append_data, dst->path may be needed rarely.  In particular, if
> we're doing fragmentation immediately after IPsec, then you may need
> it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Applied, and thanks for the nice succinct version of the rule :-)