[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADxym3bwqs9e2WKX8uOTzyYKnyTgmW4FT+N2m5hydfBJV3fqXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:48:14 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"dong.menglong@....com.cn" <dong.menglong@....com.cn>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:12 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
...
>
> Isn't MSG_CMSG_COMPAT an internal value?
> Could it be changed to 1u << 30 instead of 1u << 31 ?
> Then it wouldn't matter if the high bit of flags got replicated.
>
Yeah, MSG_CMSG_COMPAT is an internal value, and maybe
it's why it is defined as 1<< 31, to make it look different.
I think it's a good idea to change it to other value which is
not used, such as 1u<<21.
I will test it and resend this patch later, thanks~
With Regards,
Menglong Dong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists