On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 07:33:11PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Geliang,
>
> On 12/06/2020 07:27, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > Unify these two duplicate macros into 8.
>
> Thank you for this new patch!
>
> (...)
>
> > diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.h b/net/mptcp/protocol.h
> > index 809687d3f410..86d265500cf6 100644
> > --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h
> > +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h
> > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static inline __be32 mptcp_option(u8 subopt, u8 len, u8
> > nib, u8 field)
> > ((nib & 0xF) << 8) | field);
> > }
> > -#define MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR 4
> > +#define MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX 8
>
> I think it would be better to drop MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR and keep
> MPTCP_PM_ADDR_MAX in pm_netlink.c where it is used. Each PM can decide
> what's the maximum number of addresses it can support.
>
> MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR seems to be a left over from a previous implementation of
> a PM that has not been upstreamed but replaced by the Netlink PM later.
>
> Also, please always add "net" or "net-next" prefix in the subject of your
> email to help -net maintainers. Do not hesitate to look at the netdev FAQ
> for more details.
>
> Here this patch looks like a fix so you should have [PATCH net] and a
> "Fixes" tag. I guess for this patch you can use:
>
> Fixes: 1b1c7a0ef7f3 ("mptcp: Add path manager interface")
>
> That's where MPTCP_PM_MAX_ADDR has been introduced. It was already not used
> and never used later.
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
> --
> Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
> www.tessares.net
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your reply.
I have already resend patch v2 to you.
-Geliang
