| Message ID | 463f48a4f92aa403453d30a801259c68fda15387.1591939496.git.geliangtang@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mptcp: unify MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR and MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX | expand |
Hi Geliang, On 12/06/2020 07:27, Geliang Tang wrote: > Unify these two duplicate macros into 8. Thank you for this new patch! (...) > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > index 809687d3f410..86d265500cf6 100644 > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static inline __be32 mptcp_option(u8 subopt, u8 len, u8 nib, u8 field) > ((nib & 0xF) << 8) | field); > } > > -#define MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR 4 > +#define MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX 8 I think it would be better to drop MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR and keep MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX in pm_netlink.c where it is used. Each PM can decide what's the maximum number of addresses it can support. MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR seems to be a left over from a previous implementation of a PM that has not been upstreamed but replaced by the Netlink PM later. Also, please always add "net" or "net-next" prefix in the subject of your email to help -net maintainers. Do not hesitate to look at the netdev FAQ for more details. Here this patch looks like a fix so you should have [PATCH net] and a "Fixes" tag. I guess for this patch you can use: Fixes: 1b1c7a0ef7f3 ("mptcp: Add path manager interface") That's where MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR has been introduced. It was already not used and never used later. Cheers, Matt
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 07:33:11PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Geliang, > > On 12/06/2020 07:27, Geliang Tang wrote: > > Unify these two duplicate macros into 8. > > Thank you for this new patch! > > (...) > > > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > index 809687d3f410..86d265500cf6 100644 > > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h > > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static inline __be32 mptcp_option(u8 subopt, u8 len, u8 nib, u8 field) > > ((nib & 0xF) << 8) | field); > > } > > -#define MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR 4 > > +#define MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX 8 > > I think it would be better to drop MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR and keep > MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX in pm_netlink.c where it is used. Each PM can decide > what's the maximum number of addresses it can support. > > MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR seems to be a left over from a previous implementation of > a PM that has not been upstreamed but replaced by the Netlink PM later. > > Also, please always add "net" or "net-next" prefix in the subject of your > email to help -net maintainers. Do not hesitate to look at the netdev FAQ > for more details. > > Here this patch looks like a fix so you should have [PATCH net] and a > "Fixes" tag. I guess for this patch you can use: > > Fixes: 1b1c7a0ef7f3 ("mptcp: Add path manager interface") > > That's where MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR has been introduced. It was already not used > and never used later. > > Cheers, > Matt > -- > Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions > www.tessares.net Hi Matt, Thanks for your reply. I have already resend patch v2 to you. -Geliang
diff --git a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c index b78edf237ba0..b694f13caba8 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c +++ b/net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c @@ -41,8 +41,6 @@ struct pm_nl_pernet { unsigned int next_id; }; -#define MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX 8 - static bool addresses_equal(const struct mptcp_addr_info *a, struct mptcp_addr_info *b, bool use_port) { diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h index 809687d3f410..86d265500cf6 100644 --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static inline __be32 mptcp_option(u8 subopt, u8 len, u8 nib, u8 field) ((nib & 0xF) << 8) | field); } -#define MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR 4 +#define MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX 8 struct mptcp_addr_info { sa_family_t family;
Unify these two duplicate macros into 8. Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> --- net/mptcp/pm_netlink.c | 2 -- net/mptcp/protocol.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)