Hi Jakub, > On 13. Feb 2025, at 04:57, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:33:57 +0100 Mateusz Polchlopek wrote: >>>> I don't think we want to remove that piece of code, please refer >>>> to the discussion under the link: >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1681917361.git.lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> Hm, the commit message (dbda0fba7a14) says payload was deleted because >>> "the member is not even used anywhere," but it was just commented out. >>> In the cover letter it then explains that "deleted" actually means >>> "commented out." >>> >>> However, I can't follow the reasoning in the cover letter either: >>> >>> "Note that instead of completely deleting it, we just leave it as a >>> comment in the struct, signalling to the reader that we do expect >>> such variable parameters over there, as Marcelo suggested." >>> >>> Where do I find Marcelo's suggestion and the "variable parameters over >>> there?" >>> >> >> That's good question, I can't find the Marcelo suggestion that author >> mention. It's hard to find without links to previous series or >> discussion :/ >> >> I guess it should be also commented by maintainers, I see that in the >> Xin's thread Kuba also commented change with commenting out instead >> of removing code. Let's wait > > In the linked thread the point was to document what struct will be next > in memory. Here we'd be leaving an array of u8s which isn't very > informative. I see there's precedent in this file, but I vote we just > delete the line. This patch deletes the line and I'm wondering why the "cr"? Were you referring to this patch maybe? https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250114215439.916207-3-thorsten.blum@xxxxxxxxx/ Should both payload fields just be deleted since they're not used? Thanks, Thorsten
