[1/3] net: inet_is_local_reserved_port() should return bool not int
diff mbox series

Message ID 20191122072102.248636-1-zenczykowski@gmail.com
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show
Series
  • [1/3] net: inet_is_local_reserved_port() should return bool not int
Related show

Commit Message

Maciej Żenczykowski Nov. 22, 2019, 7:21 a.m. UTC
From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com>

Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com>
---
 include/net/ip.h | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

David Miller Nov. 22, 2019, 6:06 p.m. UTC | #1
Maciej, please repost this series with a proper introduction "[PATCH 0/3]" posting
so that I know what this series does at a high level, how it is doing it, and why
it is doing it that way.

That also gives me a single email to reply to when I apply your series instead of
having to respond to each and every one, which is more work, and error prone for
me.

Thanks.
Maciej Żenczykowski Nov. 22, 2019, 9:48 p.m. UTC | #2
> Maciej, please repost this series with a proper introduction "[PATCH 0/3]" posting
> so that I know what this series does at a high level, how it is doing it, and why
> it is doing it that way.

That's because the first two patches were standalone refactors,
and only the third - one line - patch had a dependency on the 2nd.

> That also gives me a single email to reply to when I apply your series instead of
> having to respond to each and every one, which is more work, and error prone for
> me.
Maciej Żenczykowski Nov. 24, 2019, 9:24 a.m. UTC | #3
> > Maciej, please repost this series with a proper introduction "[PATCH 0/3]" posting
> > so that I know what this series does at a high level, how it is doing it, and why
> > it is doing it that way.
>
> That's because the first two patches were standalone refactors,
> and only the third - one line - patch had a dependency on the 2nd.

So I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion
you'd probably not be willing to accept the final one line patch (and
either way it should also be updating the sysctl docs) because it is
after all a change of behaviour for userspace (even if I imagine very
rarely utilized).

I'm still not sure what exactly to do about it.  Perhaps the easiest
thing is to carry it around as an Android common kernel only patch.
I'm not sure.
I'm kind of loathe to add another sysctl... but perhaps?

So for now I'll go with resubmitting just the refactor, which I *hope*
won't be controversial??

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/include/net/ip.h b/include/net/ip.h
index a2c61c36dc4a..cebf3e10def1 100644
--- a/include/net/ip.h
+++ b/include/net/ip.h
@@ -339,10 +339,10 @@  static inline u64 snmp_fold_field64(void __percpu *mib, int offt, size_t syncp_o
 void inet_get_local_port_range(struct net *net, int *low, int *high);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
-static inline int inet_is_local_reserved_port(struct net *net, int port)
+static inline bool inet_is_local_reserved_port(struct net *net, int port)
 {
 	if (!net->ipv4.sysctl_local_reserved_ports)
-		return 0;
+		return false;
 	return test_bit(port, net->ipv4.sysctl_local_reserved_ports);
 }
 
@@ -357,9 +357,9 @@  static inline int inet_prot_sock(struct net *net)
 }
 
 #else
-static inline int inet_is_local_reserved_port(struct net *net, int port)
+static inline bool inet_is_local_reserved_port(struct net *net, int port)
 {
-	return 0;
+	return false;
 }
 
 static inline int inet_prot_sock(struct net *net)