From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 6FC73246347 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 09:27:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736846827; cv=none; b=nHZq+XuI5RnxGjMpV/ofIbN3GQNzNkJvQv1qvNmvxllsdLGCoSyVQSB23lseHvqNQs1jEaEPqZmCQOyto8dOWq+DGQr/8llGQ7ZagQJmZ/HC1TcDZ5IOQcFLcTM71EZNzOi3dXszmVWogM3/I+DX2gxQep4JB1n9shivJzU9+S0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736846827; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gAaTpiZZxVuo9MKBAvxUrMZl0HLfKqPTNHQEkZUllLM=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=g7hgB5GB7bDZKyFfzi3yicz3ucn5QLPmc2Z5l6yAEbqB1a3R0t6BOjYolxdp1fXHBmWsbQhzBcgLzZ7OD5GBg5jcS8E4DXzR491gd9iBWXym61Nk3ffvaBqn3BkwGBoZE+fzU683pcgRnpFmqagi4bgH8B126MBuKb8a54x8BfE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=D2gQJHto; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="D2gQJHto" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE95FC4CEDD; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 09:27:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1736846827; bh=gAaTpiZZxVuo9MKBAvxUrMZl0HLfKqPTNHQEkZUllLM=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D2gQJHtoollIJtBqYIJmIPCVS+9ZcoFpqi/0Td3OxnlCdVHI9Kt5K6iMUF8NrADKV OS6b0H+Zn+M2LG+paUrBvLuyoBzPTpBjM9CMub3Fvulxneu0fDJgr+r7akeNJU043c ls2gZzZxxHjJV4qMJku3stgeLazppGCyMje6Ol+KYA0I9ezxzXSC74OC81n3v0VsM2 x7Z8f/nmbwMhVWUQL010Tullw2BgX4sRuOy0nbDZtk17F5HOyZ9QJ2sJfo/0+Kt45R as/GrHfqAdiaFOE/yBSlhraCJB2bhgNBUNTGjoqHcKgnXsMmuCXjOKdKIqwKeLBl4f 6AiSCAnAO/RjA== Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-next v2 22/36] mptcp: change is_backup interfaces as get_flags From: Geliang Tang To: Matthieu Baerts , mptcp@lists.linux.dev Cc: Geliang Tang Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 17:27:03 +0800 In-Reply-To: <1ab2187a-7858-42c9-9aa6-a8425cf20bdf@kernel.org> References: <1ab2187a-7858-42c9-9aa6-a8425cf20bdf@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.3-0ubuntu1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2024-11-04 at 19:55 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > Hi Geliang, > > On 22/10/2024 11:14, Geliang Tang wrote: > > From: Geliang Tang > > > > The is_backup() interface of path manager is not very common. A > > more > > common approach is to add a get_flags() interface to obtain the > > flags > > value of a given address. Then is_backup() can be implemented > > through > > get_flags() by test whether backup flag is set in the flags value. > > Out of curiosity, is this going to simplify something later on? > Because > with this description, it is hard to see the value of this patch. > > The backup flag is special: that's the only one that is linked to a > bit > that will appear in the packets, the only one that needs to be known > by > the other peer. In this case, I think it makes sense to have > dedicated > helpers to retrieve this info, and not the rest. > > Except if you think we will need to extract the other flags later? Yes, I am preparing for the use of other flags in the future. In that case, we don't need to add another function pointer interface in struct mptcp_pm_ops. This patch is resent in "BPF path manager, part 3". Thanks, -Geliang > > Cheers, > Matt