> -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.duma...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 10:18 PM > To: Zhang Shengju <zhangshen...@cmss.chinamobile.com> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [net-next] icmp: correct return value of icmp_rcv() > > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 14:52 +0800, Zhang Shengju wrote: > > Currently, icmp_rcv() always return zero on a packet delivery upcall. > > > > To make its behavior more compliant with the way this API should be > > used, this patch changes this to let it return NET_RX_SUCCESS when the > > packet is proper handled, and NET_RX_DROP otherwise. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Shengju <zhangshen...@cmss.chinamobile.com> > > --- > > net/ipv4/icmp.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/icmp.c b/net/ipv4/icmp.c index 691146a..f79d7a8 > > 100644 > > --- a/net/ipv4/icmp.c > > +++ b/net/ipv4/icmp.c > > @@ -1047,12 +1047,12 @@ int icmp_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb) > > > > if (success) { > > consume_skb(skb); > > - return 0; > > + return NET_RX_SUCCESS; > > } > > > > drop: > > kfree_skb(skb); > > - return 0; > > + return NET_RX_DROP; > > csum_error: > > __ICMP_INC_STATS(net, ICMP_MIB_CSUMERRORS); > > error: > > > I am curious, what external/visible effects do you expect from such a change ? > > We now have a very precise monitoring of where packets are dropped > (consume_skb()/kfree_skb()) > >
I know that the return value is always ignored, I just to want to make it compliant with the way this API required like I said in the comment. Thanks,
