From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AADDCC77B6C for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 22:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229506AbjDLWWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:22:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34800 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229499AbjDLWWc (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:22:32 -0400 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.188.207]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4447EEF; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:22:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:22:12 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Matthieu Baerts , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, mptcp@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH net,v2] uapi: linux: restore IPPROTO_MAX to 256 and add IPPROTO_UAPI_MAX Message-ID: References: <20230406092558.459491-1-pablo@netfilter.org> <20230412072104.61910016@kernel.org> <405a8fa2-4a71-71c8-7715-10d3d2301dac@tessares.net> <7405c14e-1fbe-c820-c470-36b0a50b4cae@tessares.net> <20230412123718.7e6c0b55@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230412123718.7e6c0b55@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:37:18PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:35:40 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote: > > > Is this theoretical, or you think any library might be doing this > > > already? I lack of sufficient knowledge of the MPTCP ecosystem to > > > evaluate myself. > > > > This is theoretical. > > > > But using it with socket's protocol parameter is the only good usage of > > IPPROTO_MAX for me :-D > > Perhaps. No strong preference from me. That said I think I can come up > with a good name for the SO use: SO_IPPROTO_MAX (which IMHO it's better > than IPPROTO_UAPI_MAX if Pablo doesn't mind sed'ing?) SO_ is usually reserved for socket options. > The name for a max in proto sense... I'm not sure what that would be. > IPPROTO_MAX_IPPROTO ? IP_IPROTO_MAX ? IP_PROTO_MAX ? Dunno..