On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 01:49:49PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 15:27 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linvi...@tuxdriver.com> > > --- > > > } > > > > @@ -150,6 +159,10 @@ static void geneve_print_opt(struct link_util *lu, > > FILE *f, struct rtattr *tb[]) > > else > > fprintf(f, "tos %#x ", tos); > > } > > + > > + if (tb[IFLA_GENEVE_PORT]) > > + fprintf(f, "dstport %u ", > > + ntohs(rta_getattr_u16(tb[IFLA_GENEVE_PORT]))); > > This looks strange. > > Kernel does : > > if (nla_put_u16(skb, IFLA_GENEVE_PORT, ntohs(geneve->dst_port))) > goto nla_put_failure;
Indeed, you are right. I had essentially copied some vxlan code when I did my version of adding the port attribute, and didn't take much care when adapting that code for the version that actually got merged. The current geneve code is using host byte-order for the UDP port in the netlink messages. But, I see that vxlan, gre, iptnl, etc are using network byte order for specifying UDP ports in their netlink stuff. Should geneve follow that practice as well? Or does it matter? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linvi...@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
