> On Jan 23, 2021, at 5:13 PM, David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/23/21 1:00 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 22:16:41 -0700 David Ahern wrote: >>> On 1/22/21 9:02 PM, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: >>>> Why can't we get rid of the special case for 0 and simply make 1024 the >>>> default value? >>> >>> That would work too. >> >> Should we drop it then? Easier to bring it back than to change the >> interpretation later. It doesn't seem to serve any clear purpose right >> now. >> >> (Praveen if you post v4 please take a look at the checkpatch --strict >> warnings and address the ones which make sense, e.g. drop the brackets >> around comparisons, those are just noise, basic grasp of C operator >> precedence can be assumed in readers of kernel code). >> > > let's do a v4. > > Praveen: set the initial value to IP6_RT_PRIO_USER, do not allow 0, > remove the checks on value and don't forget to update documentation. > Sure, I will respin V4, with above mentioned changes. Also, I will address checkpatch --strict warnings. I wanted to set initial value to IP6_RT_PRIO_USER in v1, but avoided till review for 2 simple coding reasons: 1.) IP6_RT_PRIO_USER must be exposed in net/ipv6/addrconf.c by including include/uapi/linux/ipv6_route.h. 2.) If rt6_add_dflt_router() will be called from other files in future, IP6_RT_PRIO_USER should be included in all those files as well, because caller will pass most probably default value. > Oh and cc me on the next otherwise the review depends on me finding time > to scan netdev. Sure, I will cc you and will add “Reviewed by” as well. I will also send you the lkml link to v4. Thanks Jakub and you for reviewing this over the weekend.
