From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA99EC432C0 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 09:24:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A403C20674 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 09:24:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="D3KYhhYb" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726767AbfKXJYx (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Nov 2019 04:24:53 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com ([209.85.217.67]:37629 "EHLO mail-vs1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725980AbfKXJYx (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Nov 2019 04:24:53 -0500 Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id u6so7953094vsp.4 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 01:24:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uOi9/3Q0X3w1OfxUDmTCL10mVYvW+MBUir/d9YeA3Ys=; b=D3KYhhYbXDNvMBQYB8korikYRelHiV3c5RvDJ55I722uPWddQkMB08m6s0Q9yWhAcA HTHgCJ2InBeaIdANNUIGAGL1xermd60im86ZpIQqhMgaTbHKMz+Ig2nyvygJhSzbuDfo TbgpUi9OcyMmtEuXiUTX/86Qsj42ri+AQvJdL/vndLSOM2Z8Z9Rx8HYYgCzgg3YjtD2r WjGXzT/LI6Y+lV+u/QOuW2ntdFBec9TLNh7cMIC+V3931XI/mJRD3WSw/sGNmAzVQc3C EikpI4/Qq18wzAO9In3Gg1liHNv0/1N+XSa66Txn8Z5IVEcDnXdaMKi4reqVJzC715HU dMPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uOi9/3Q0X3w1OfxUDmTCL10mVYvW+MBUir/d9YeA3Ys=; b=I/kychZzO/shFFX+kZz+Mc82yRTezF78Gf2MW4/vYCzOrWdSQ9Bp3KPkwaau71UlNa Hvu26rNUtY8uuQVAH5jb4a/3T9mJGd/dZaDvAk9z149D9kdBtVfcQFGHRDABnHMfWk6j icSsTh4Fa6u0dK76R7gMvhA6y+DxAT5e4R1TbZEaR2KNQTqRIDCJPJcezWQyhMxbqrgu /QLAec7lNwTFOWKzBU3aqtlPXwm5EtnudQUpMy5iVn3NX8Q7wQjxdMYHV4CBwzKYyW70 4qzyC1Wuq1m5GHLXlF3Gl6QDATeMISxVOxpndBshx+45bcYGTjA5quFbrHr8ysKASfcW IPkg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUIcUkrzwLXlupy+YFwb5HUEslvkiaOTsxf2qBmmzLNjwssmOGe xvMwA0oQ3G6OkP7ArN1KEjHlfaN1RZ3/d46CDyo8xg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxOiLdDlrzeIaj0JChHNL/Fc7oei5e2a4sKo5TF6Wl20KMUsnG/8pY6WuPMaa6Scn1lJIE7suZjWAQ+WCpt5e4= X-Received: by 2002:a67:e9d6:: with SMTP id q22mr16159896vso.231.1574587491566; Sun, 24 Nov 2019 01:24:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191122072102.248636-1-zenczykowski@gmail.com> <20191122.100657.2043691592550032738.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 01:24:39 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: inet_is_local_reserved_port() should return bool not int To: David Miller Cc: Linux NetDev , Eric Dumazet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org > > Maciej, please repost this series with a proper introduction "[PATCH 0/3]" posting > > so that I know what this series does at a high level, how it is doing it, and why > > it is doing it that way. > > That's because the first two patches were standalone refactors, > and only the third - one line - patch had a dependency on the 2nd. So I've been thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion you'd probably not be willing to accept the final one line patch (and either way it should also be updating the sysctl docs) because it is after all a change of behaviour for userspace (even if I imagine very rarely utilized). I'm still not sure what exactly to do about it. Perhaps the easiest thing is to carry it around as an Android common kernel only patch. I'm not sure. I'm kind of loathe to add another sysctl... but perhaps? So for now I'll go with resubmitting just the refactor, which I *hope* won't be controversial??