[RFC] s/TCP_ESTABLISHED/PROTO_ESTABLISHED/g

[RFC] s/TCP_ESTABLISHED/PROTO_ESTABLISHED/g

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Dave,

	Part of the sock cleanup made me remove the #include <linux/tcp.h> from
include/linux/ip.h and from include/net/sock.h, i.e., it is not needed in
those headers, but then I had to go to udp.c, ipx.c, decnet, etc, and add a
#include <linux/tcp.h> because it needs TCP_ESTABLISHED, TCP_CLOSE, etc,
this is a pet peeve to me, as a janitor :-) Can I change this to
PROTO_ESTABLISHED, PROTO_CLOSE, etc, and have it on a different header, say
include/net/protocol.h?  Its strange to have IPX, DecNET, etc having to
include net/tcp.h (that in turn includes ip.h, etc).

	If this is ok I can bundle it in the sock cleanup or send it
separately, your call.

- Arnaldo

Re: [RFC] s/TCP_ESTABLISHED/PROTO_ESTABLISHED/g

[David S. Miller]

   From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
   Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:16:29 -0200

   	Part of the sock cleanup made me remove the #include <linux/tcp.h> from
   include/linux/ip.h and from include/net/sock.h, i.e., it is not needed in
   those headers, but then I had to go to udp.c, ipx.c, decnet, etc, and add a
   #include <linux/tcp.h> because it needs TCP_ESTABLISHED, TCP_CLOSE, etc,
   this is a pet peeve to me, as a janitor :-) Can I change this to
   PROTO_ESTABLISHED, PROTO_CLOSE, etc, and have it on a different header, say
   include/net/protocol.h?  Its strange to have IPX, DecNET, etc having to
   include net/tcp.h (that in turn includes ip.h, etc).
   
   	If this is ok I can bundle it in the sock cleanup or send it
   separately, your call.

These other protocols are just borrowing state machine states from
TCP.  I really see no reason to rename them, because then if you did
the TCP usage wouldn't make look right anymore. :-)

I don't mind moving the header include from sock.h to the protocols
though.

Franks a lot,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

Re: [RFC] s/TCP_ESTABLISHED/PROTO_ESTABLISHED/g

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 08:21:41AM -0800, David S. Miller escreveu:
>    From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
>    Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:16:29 -0200
> 
>    	Part of the sock cleanup made me remove the #include <linux/tcp.h> from
>    include/linux/ip.h and from include/net/sock.h, i.e., it is not needed in
>    those headers, but then I had to go to udp.c, ipx.c, decnet, etc, and add a
>    #include <linux/tcp.h> because it needs TCP_ESTABLISHED, TCP_CLOSE, etc,
>    this is a pet peeve to me, as a janitor :-) Can I change this to
>    PROTO_ESTABLISHED, PROTO_CLOSE, etc, and have it on a different header, say
>    include/net/protocol.h?  Its strange to have IPX, DecNET, etc having to
>    include net/tcp.h (that in turn includes ip.h, etc).
>    
>    	If this is ok I can bundle it in the sock cleanup or send it
>    separately, your call.
> 
> These other protocols are just borrowing state machine states from
> TCP.  I really see no reason to rename them, because then if you did
> the TCP usage wouldn't make look right anymore. :-)
> 
> I don't mind moving the header include from sock.h to the protocols
> though.

just to make sure I understood: "to the protocols" means creating
IPX_ESTABLISHED, etc, or does it mean having the protocols include tcp.h?

- Arnaldo

Re: [RFC] s/TCP_ESTABLISHED/PROTO_ESTABLISHED/g

[David S. Miller]

   From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
   Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:06:26 -0200
   
   just to make sure I understood: "to the protocols" means creating
   IPX_ESTABLISHED, etc, or does it mean having the protocols include tcp.h?

Include tcp.h

Re: [RFC] s/TCP_ESTABLISHED/PROTO_ESTABLISHED/g

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 09:07:24AM -0800, David S. Miller escreveu:
>    From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
>    Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:06:26 -0200
>    
>    just to make sure I understood: "to the protocols" means creating
>    IPX_ESTABLISHED, etc, or does it mean having the protocols include tcp.h?
> 
> Include tcp.h

Ok, thats what is being done, works, but I still think its ugly, I'm a
nitpicker, you know 8-)

- Arnaldo