The 11/23/2020 14:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:25:53 +0200 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >>> @@ -156,4 +157,10 @@ struct br_mrp_in_link_hdr {
> > >>> __be16 interval;
> > >>> };
> > >>>
> > >>> +struct br_mrp_in_link_status_hdr {
> > >>> + __u8 sa[ETH_ALEN];
> > >>> + __be16 port_role;
> > >>> + __be16 id;
> > >>> +};
> > >>> +
> > >>
> > >> I didn't see this struct used anywhere, am I missing anything?
> > >
> > > Yes, you are right, the struct is not used any. But I put it there as I
> > > put the other frame types for MRP.
> > >
> >
> > I see, we don't usually add unused code. The patch is fine as-is and since
> > this is already the case for other MRP parts I'm not strictly against it, so:
> >
> > Acked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > If Jakub decides to adhere to that rule you can keep my acked-by and just remove
> > the struct for v2.
Hi Jakub,
>
> Yes, good catch, let's drop it, we don't want to make too much of
> a precedent for using kernel uAPI headers as a place to provide
> protocol-related structs if the kernel doesn't need them.
OK, I see. I will send a new version for this patch where I will drop
the struct 'br_mrp_in_link_stauts_hdr'.
>
> The existing structs are only present in net-next as well, so if you
> don't mind Horatiu it'd be good to follow up and remove the unused ones
> and move the ones (if any) which are only used by the kernel but not by
> the user space <-> kernel API communication out of include/uapi.
Maybe we don't refer to the same structs, but I could see that they are
already in net and in Linus' tree. For example the struct
'br_mrp_ring_topo_hdr'. Or am I missunderstanding something?
--
/Horatiu
