From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 2/3] net sched actions: dump more than TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO actions per batch Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:21:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20170428122131.GC19353@vergenet.net> References: <20170426110241.GA28251@vergenet.net> <2e09d117-60f9-97ed-9f63-c94130ddbb0c@mojatatu.com> <20170426130506.GF1867@nanopsycho.orion> <20170426.104658.547156121898948265.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: jiri@resnulli.us, jhs@mojatatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:35655 "EHLO mail-wm0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1165230AbdD1MVg (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:21:36 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id w64so40796457wma.0 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 05:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170426.104658.547156121898948265.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:46:58AM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Jiri Pirko > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:05:06 +0200 > > > Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:46:22PM CEST, jhs@mojatatu.com wrote: > >>On 17-04-26 07:02 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:04:45PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>[..] > >> > >>> > So fix iproute2. It is always first kernel, then iproute2. > >>> > >>> Perhaps I am missing the point or somehow misguided but I would expect that > >>> if the UAPI uses BIT() it also provides BIT(). > >> > >>There is a user of BIT() already in iproute2 (devlink). We can move > >>the code to be more generally available for other iproute2 users. > >>Then this UAPI change makes use of it. > > > > Should be part of UAPI as well > > I see that include/uapi/rdma/vmw_pvrdma-abi.h is using BIT macro. > > I don't see BIT macro defined in UAPI (I thought it is). So either > > define it there (not sure where) or just use "<<" > > "BIT" is a pretty crazy small simple name to pollute into the global > namespace, IMHO. It sounds to me that it would be best to just use "<<" rather than spending cycles posturing on how to add it to the UAPI. Existing users of BIT in the UAPI could also be updated to use "<<" to avoid having a misleading precedence in-tree.