diff for duplicates of <ZHB3BNopbx+5AnIa@gmail.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 5c8168c..823910b 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:06:00PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: -> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote: +> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:34 AM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote: > > On 5/25/23 9:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > > I don't understand what this buys us vs testing the sk_family, > > > sk_protocol and cmd here. @@ -22,12 +22,12 @@ On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:06:00PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > linux/socket.h. The differences between > PN_PROTO_PHONET and PN_PROTO_PIPE should be handled inside the family > code. So I think it is cleaner just to open-coded as `if -> (sk->sk_family = PF_PHONET)` +> (sk->sk_family == PF_PHONET)` Should we do the same for ipmr as well? Currently I am checking it using: - return sk->sk_type = SOCK_RAW && inet_sk(sk)->inet_num = IPPROTO_ICMPV6; + return sk->sk_type == SOCK_RAW && inet_sk(sk)->inet_num == IPPROTO_ICMPV6; This is what ip{6}mr functions[1] are use to check if `sk` is using ip{6}mr. If we just use `sk->family`, then I suppose that `sk_is_ip6mr` would be @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ something as coded below. Is this correct? static inline int sk_is_ip6mr(struct sock *sk) { - return sk->sk_family = PF_INET6; + return sk->sk_family == PF_INET6; } Anyway, should we continue with the current (V3) approach, where we keep diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index d152cab..a32d39c 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,12 +1,37 @@ "ref\020230525125503.400797-1-leitao@debian.org\0" + "ref\0CAF=yD-LHQNkgPb-R==53-2auVxkP9r=xqrz2A8oe61vkoDdWjg@mail.gmail.com\0" + "ref\0a1074987-c3ce-56cd-3005-beb5a3c55ef9@kernel.org\0" + "ref\0CAF=yD-LXcufhJBpkEcUuphFpR1TA4=QwUXw4sKFsSiEL_mwG4Q@mail.gmail.com\0" "From\0Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>\0" "Subject\0Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: ioctl: Use kernel memory on protocol ioctl callbacks\0" - "Date\0Fri, 26 May 2023 09:08:20 +0000\0" - "To\0dccp@vger.kernel.org\0" + "Date\0Fri, 26 May 2023 02:08:20 -0700\0" + "To\0Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>\0" + "Cc\0David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>" + Remi Denis-Courmont <courmisch@gmail.com> + David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> + Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> + Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> + Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> + Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com> + Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org> + Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> + Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> + Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org> + Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com> + Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com> + leit@fb.com + axboe@kernel.dk + asml.silence@gmail.com + linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org + netdev@vger.kernel.org + dccp@vger.kernel.org + linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org + mptcp@lists.linux.dev + " linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 12:06:00PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:\n" - "> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:34\303\242\342\202\254\302\257AM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote:\n" + "> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:34\342\200\257AM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote:\n" "> > On 5/25/23 9:05 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:\n" "> > > I don't understand what this buys us vs testing the sk_family,\n" "> > > sk_protocol and cmd here.\n" @@ -29,12 +54,12 @@ "> linux/socket.h. The differences between\n" "> PN_PROTO_PHONET and PN_PROTO_PIPE should be handled inside the family\n" "> code. So I think it is cleaner just to open-coded as `if\n" - "> (sk->sk_family = PF_PHONET)`\n" + "> (sk->sk_family == PF_PHONET)`\n" "\n" "Should we do the same for ipmr as well? Currently I am checking it\n" "using:\n" "\n" - "\treturn sk->sk_type = SOCK_RAW && inet_sk(sk)->inet_num = IPPROTO_ICMPV6;\n" + "\treturn sk->sk_type == SOCK_RAW && inet_sk(sk)->inet_num == IPPROTO_ICMPV6;\n" "\n" "This is what ip{6}mr functions[1] are use to check if `sk` is using ip{6}mr.\n" "If we just use `sk->family`, then I suppose that `sk_is_ip6mr` would be\n" @@ -42,7 +67,7 @@ "\n" "\tstatic inline int sk_is_ip6mr(struct sock *sk)\n" "\t{\n" - "\t\treturn sk->sk_family = PF_INET6;\n" + "\t\treturn sk->sk_family == PF_INET6;\n" "\t}\n" "\n" "Anyway, should we continue with the current (V3) approach, where we keep\n" @@ -53,4 +78,4 @@ "Thanks for the review!\n" [1] Link: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/0d85b27b0cc6b5cf54567c5ad913a247a71583ce/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c#L1666 -4f5e1b4b5d37f292ad3b84174cead3f69fe0ead38763feb27b87b529c1710434 +f1f70394850cd9d1ba057d4944f7cf90814bf80c1d310f011470d2e9d66babf8
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.