On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 3:18 AM, <f...@ikuai8.com> wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <f...@ikuai8.com>
>
> It is better to use NF_IP_PRI_LAST instead of INT_MAX as hook priority.
> The former is good at readability and easier to maintain.
>
This IPvlan hook has to be "absolute" last hook and at this moment
NF_IP_PRI_LAST is set as INT_MAX so it's not altering anything.
If for whatever reasons the value of NF_IP_PRI_LAST changes, there
could be random IPvlan failure. Since that possibility cannot be
denied and there are several places INT_MAX is still used as hook
priority, I don't see any gain in having this patch in fact there
could be future (possible) downside.
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <f...@ikuai8.com>
> ---
> v2: Add the lost header file. It is added in local but not in v1 patch
> v1: Inital patch
>
> drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> index ab90b22..01c7446 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> *
> */
>
> +#include "linux/netfilter_ipv4.h"
> #include "ipvlan.h"
>
> static u32 ipvl_nf_hook_refcnt = 0;
> @@ -16,13 +17,13 @@
> .hook = ipvlan_nf_input,
> .pf = NFPROTO_IPV4,
> .hooknum = NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
> - .priority = INT_MAX,
> + .priority = NF_IP_PRI_LAST,
> },
> {
> .hook = ipvlan_nf_input,
> .pf = NFPROTO_IPV6,
> .hooknum = NF_INET_LOCAL_IN,
> - .priority = INT_MAX,
> + .priority = NF_IP_PRI_LAST,
> },
> };
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
