| Message ID | dc9dca0006fa1b586da44dcd54e29eb4300fe773.1635784253.git.cdleonard@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Herbert Xu |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,01/25] tcp: authopt: Initial support and key management | expand |
On 11/1/21 10:34 AM, Leonard Crestez wrote: > Extending these flags using the existing (1 << x) pattern triggers > complaints from checkpatch. > > Instead of ignoring checkpatch modify the existing values to use BIT(x) > style in a separate commit. > > Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@gmail.com> > --- > net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 14 +++++++------- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > This one could be sent outside of this patch set since you are not adding new values. Patch sets > 20 are generally frowned upon; sending this one separately helps get the number down.
On 11/3/21 4:31 AM, David Ahern wrote: > On 11/1/21 10:34 AM, Leonard Crestez wrote: >> Extending these flags using the existing (1 << x) pattern triggers >> complaints from checkpatch. >> >> Instead of ignoring checkpatch modify the existing values to use BIT(x) >> style in a separate commit. >> >> Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@gmail.com> >> --- >> net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 14 +++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> > > This one could be sent outside of this patch set since you are not > adding new values. Patch sets > 20 are generally frowned upon; sending > this one separately helps get the number down. In the past I've seen maintainers pick small cleanups and fixes from longer series that otherwise need further discussion. Not sure if this practice is also common for netdev so I posted this patch separately. -- Regards, Leonard
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c index 6867e5db3e35..96f16386f50e 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c @@ -406,17 +406,17 @@ static void tcp_init_nondata_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, u32 seq, u8 flags) static inline bool tcp_urg_mode(const struct tcp_sock *tp) { return tp->snd_una != tp->snd_up; } -#define OPTION_SACK_ADVERTISE (1 << 0) -#define OPTION_TS (1 << 1) -#define OPTION_MD5 (1 << 2) -#define OPTION_WSCALE (1 << 3) -#define OPTION_FAST_OPEN_COOKIE (1 << 8) -#define OPTION_SMC (1 << 9) -#define OPTION_MPTCP (1 << 10) +#define OPTION_SACK_ADVERTISE BIT(0) +#define OPTION_TS BIT(1) +#define OPTION_MD5 BIT(2) +#define OPTION_WSCALE BIT(3) +#define OPTION_FAST_OPEN_COOKIE BIT(8) +#define OPTION_SMC BIT(9) +#define OPTION_MPTCP BIT(10) static void smc_options_write(__be32 *ptr, u16 *options) { #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMC) if (static_branch_unlikely(&tcp_have_smc)) {
Extending these flags using the existing (1 << x) pattern triggers complaints from checkpatch. Instead of ignoring checkpatch modify the existing values to use BIT(x) style in a separate commit. Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@gmail.com> --- net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)