Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*

From: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	"herbert@gondor.apana.org.au" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	"dong.menglong@zte.com.cn" <dong.menglong@zte.com.cn>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 RESEND net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:53:23 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADxym3bHyaiy=kOhmxYdoMTZ_QaG9-JWqC1j6ucOBOeobVBoPg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vfo=rtK0=nRTZNwL3peUXGt5PTo4d_epCgLChSD0CKRVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:36 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
...
>
> The problematic code is negation of the flags when it's done in
> operations like &.
> It maybe fixed by swapping positions of the arguments, i.e. ~(FOO |
> BAR) & flags.
>
> All this is a beast called "integer promotions" in the C standard.
>
> The best is to try to get flags to be unsigned. By how invasive it may be?

Seems that the inconsistent usages of 'msg_flags' is a lot, for example the
'recvmsg()' in 'struct proto' and 'recvmsg()' in 'struct proto_ops':

int (*recvmsg)(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg,
        size_t len, int noblock, int flags,
        int *addr_len);

This function prototype is used in many places, It's not easy to fix them.
This patch is already reverted, and I think maybe
I can resend it after I fix these 'int' flags.

>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Thanks!
Menglong Dong