[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGK4HS9LuvgOoY+cSXq-Vjbx7x5gsQ03wj6Tb1UDsO=89Wkrpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:02:52 -0800
From: Vijay Subramanian <subramanian.vijay@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, "H.K. Jerry Chu" <hkchu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tcp: Replace constants with #define macros
Thanks a lot for reviewing the patch. Please see responses below.
On 20 December 2011 02:27, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
>> +/*These are used to set the sack_ok field in struct
>> tcp_options_received */
>> +#define SACK_SEEN (1 << 0) /*1 = peer is SACK capable, */
>> +#define FACK_ENABLED (1 << 1) /*1 = FACK is enabled locally*/
>> +#define DSACK_SEEN (1 << 2) /*1 = DSACK was received from peer*/
>> +
>
> Since that is a fairly public header, some namespace protection
> might be sensible.
I assume you are talking about collision with userspace. These
definitions are already protected by #ifdef __KERNEL__.
That should be enough to protect against collisions with userspace I think.
>
>> - tcp_opt->sack_ok = (options >> 4) & 0x1;
>> + tcp_opt->sack_ok = (options >> 4) & SACK_SEEN;
>
> Looks to me like that 0x1 isn't SAC_SEEK! So this is now misleading.
Can you please elaborate? Are you saying this is wrong or that it
could be done better?
Thanks for your time!
Vijay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists