Do you by any chance have a usecase which requires exposing rn_addmask? If not, I'd rather prefer to have it the other way round - making the definition static.

In D27024#603089, @melifaro wrote:

Do you by any chance have a usecase which requires exposing rn_addmask? If not, I'd rather prefer to have it the other way round - making the definition static.

Good question. NetApp has some additions to radix_mpath.c to be upstreamed that make use of this function, but it's possible that they should be using rn_lookup() instead. I'll have to investigate further before I can give a definitive answer.

In D27024#603889, @mhorne wrote:

In D27024#603089, @melifaro wrote:

Do you by any chance have a usecase which requires exposing rn_addmask? If not, I'd rather prefer to have it the other way round - making the definition static.

Good question. NetApp has some additions to radix_mpath.c to be upstreamed that make use of this function, but it's possible that they should be using rn_lookup() instead. I'll have to investigate further before I can give a definitive answer.

I guess it's worth checking it as we don't use radix_mpath.c anymore. In fact, I forgot to remove it :-)

In D27024#604021, @melifaro wrote:

I guess it's worth checking it as we don't use radix_mpath.c anymore. In fact, I forgot to remove it :-)

Ahhh, well that changes it then. That was removed recently with D26449 I guess.