Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 02:55:57PM CEST, m...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>>+enum {
>>>+ TCAA_UNSPEC,
>>>+ TCAA_ACT_TAB,
>>>+ TCAA_ACT_FLAGS,
>>>+ TCAA_ACT_COUNT,
>>>+ __TCAA_MAX
>>>+};
>>>+
>>>+#define TCAA_MAX (__TCAA_MAX - 1)
>>> #define TA_RTA(r) ((struct rtattr*)(((char*)(r)) +
>>> NLMSG_ALIGN(sizeof(struct tcamsg))))
>>> #define TA_PAYLOAD(n) NLMSG_PAYLOAD(n,sizeof(struct tcamsg))
>>>-#define TCA_ACT_TAB 1 /* attr type must be >=1 */
>>>-#define TCAA_MAX 1
>>>+#define TCA_ACT_TAB TCAA_ACT_TAB
>>
>> This is mess. What does "TCAA" stand for?
>> I suggest some more meaningful naming of the enum items and define
>> TCA_ACT_TAB and TCAA_MAX to the new values in order to maintain UAPI
>> Also, please put X_MAX = __X_MAX - 1 into enum
>>
>
>Notation observed in tc and unfortunately not consistently maintained is
>to have enum with TCA* attributes for instance, followed by define,
>outside of the enum, with __X_MAX -1
I don't have strong opinion on define or in-enum. I like in-enum better.
The rest could be converted later on.
