[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170508.113637.783558334411383400.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 11:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: garsilva@...eddedor.com
Cc: kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv4: add code comment for clarification
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:44:16 -0500
> @@ -389,6 +389,12 @@ static int sk_diag_fill(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> nlmsg_flags, unlh, net_admin);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Ignore the position of the arguments req->id.idiag_dport and
> + * req->id.idiag_sport in both calls to inet_lookup() and inet6_lookup()
> + * functions, once this is a locked in behavior exposed to user space.
> + * Changing this will break things for people.
> + */
This is implicit for every interface exposed to userspace.
Therefore, saying it here and there in various comments provides
questionable value.
And in fact I think these arguments are probably in the correct order.
I'm definitely not applying a patch like this, sorry.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists