[PATCH mptcp-next] mptcp: refer to 'MPTCP' socket in comments

[PATCH mptcp-next] mptcp: refer to 'MPTCP' socket in comments

[Davide Caratti]

we used to call it 'master' socket at the early stages of MPTCP
development, but the correct wording is 'MPTCP' socket opposed to 'TCP
subflows': convert the last 3 coments to use a more appropriate term.

Signed-off-by: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@redhat.com>
---
 net/mptcp/protocol.c | 4 ++--
 net/mptcp/subflow.c  | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
index 579031c60937..fc879f1a7a1f 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
@@ -2202,7 +2202,7 @@ static int mptcp_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,
 		if (skb_queue_empty(&msk->receive_queue) && __mptcp_move_skbs(msk))
 			continue;
 
-		/* only the master socket status is relevant here. The exit
+		/* only the MPTCP socket status is relevant here. The exit
 		 * conditions mirror closely tcp_recvmsg()
 		 */
 		if (copied >= target)
@@ -3521,7 +3521,7 @@ void mptcp_subflow_process_delegated(struct sock *ssk, long status)
 static int mptcp_hash(struct sock *sk)
 {
 	/* should never be called,
-	 * we hash the TCP subflows not the master socket
+	 * we hash the TCP subflows not the MPTCP socket
 	 */
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
 	return 0;
diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c
index 612c38570a64..39e2cbdf3801 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c
@@ -1719,7 +1719,7 @@ int mptcp_subflow_create_socket(struct sock *sk, unsigned short family,
 	mptcp_sockopt_sync_locked(mptcp_sk(sk), sf->sk);
 	release_sock(sf->sk);
 
-	/* the newly created socket really belongs to the owning MPTCP master
+	/* the newly created socket really belongs to the owning MPTCP
 	 * socket, even if for additional subflows the allocation is performed
 	 * by a kernel workqueue. Adjust inode references, so that the
 	 * procfs/diag interfaces really show this one belonging to the correct
-- 
2.44.0

Re: [PATCH mptcp-next] mptcp: refer to 'MPTCP' socket in comments

[MPTCP CI]

Hi Davide,

Thank you for your modifications, that's great!

Our CI did some validations and here is its report:

- KVM Validation: normal: Unstable: 1 failed test(s): packetdrill_mp_join 🔴
- KVM Validation: debug: Success! ✅
- KVM Validation: btf (only bpftest_all): Success! ✅
- Task: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/9100447151

Initiator: Patchew Applier
Commits: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commits/d54e41ea6585
Patchwork: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/mptcp/list/?series=853479


If there are some issues, you can reproduce them using the same environment as
the one used by the CI thanks to a docker image, e.g.:

    $ cd [kernel source code]
    $ docker run -v "${PWD}:${PWD}:rw" -w "${PWD}" --privileged --rm -it \
        --pull always mptcp/mptcp-upstream-virtme-docker:latest \
        auto-normal

For more details:

    https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp-upstream-virtme-docker


Please note that despite all the efforts that have been already done to have a
stable tests suite when executed on a public CI like here, it is possible some
reported issues are not due to your modifications. Still, do not hesitate to
help us improve that ;-)

Cheers,
MPTCP GH Action bot
Bot operated by Matthieu Baerts (NGI0 Core)

Re: [PATCH mptcp-next] mptcp: refer to 'MPTCP' socket in comments

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Davide,

On 15/05/2024 19:34, Davide Caratti wrote:
> we used to call it 'master' socket at the early stages of MPTCP
> development, but the correct wording is 'MPTCP' socket opposed to 'TCP
> subflows': convert the last 3 coments to use a more appropriate term.

Thanks! I'm giving my green light for that one (anyway, it cannot be
red, black, yellow or white... so green it is!)

Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.

Re: [PATCH mptcp-next] mptcp: refer to 'MPTCP' socket in comments

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Davide,

On 16/05/2024 10:23, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Davide,
> 
> On 15/05/2024 19:34, Davide Caratti wrote:
>> we used to call it 'master' socket at the early stages of MPTCP
>> development, but the correct wording is 'MPTCP' socket opposed to 'TCP
>> subflows': convert the last 3 coments to use a more appropriate term.
> 
> Thanks! I'm giving my green light for that one (anyway, it cannot be
> red, black, yellow or white... so green it is!)

Now in our tree (feat. for net-next):

New patches for t/upstream:
- 3baae0500fde: mptcp: refer to 'MPTCP' socket in comments
- Results: c7a8f53bd706..21cbbc8eb75d (export)

Tests are now in progress:

- export:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/73d01b0fdcd849df097e33ff5378885228993e07/checks

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.