From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [193.142.43.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92BC072 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lbhyW-0003rf-JB; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:03:24 +0200 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 13:03:24 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Matthieu Baerts Cc: Florian Westphal , mptcp@lists.linux.dev, Geliang Tang Subject: Re: [MPTCP][PATCH v2 mptcp-next 1/4] mptcp: add sysctl allow_join_initial_addr_port Message-ID: <20210428110324.GE975@breakpoint.cc> References: <51758a7f629764dc91186acbf09665992e5b8e69.1619592361.git.geliangtang@gmail.com> <20210428094043.GC975@breakpoint.cc> X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Matthieu Baerts wrote: > >>> int mptcp_enabled; > >>> unsigned int add_addr_timeout; > >>> + int allow_join_initial_addr_port; > >> > >> u8 allow_join_initial_addr_port; > > > > Should we do the same modifications for 'mptcp_enabled'? Switch to a u8 > > with min 0 and max 1? It would be better yes, but I was more interested to not follow the existing example. > Even if we typically use it with 0 and 1, modifying 'mptcp_enabled' > might be seen as breaking the exposed userspace API, no? Maybe too late > to change? Such changes have been done in the past, I think its ok.