Re: [PATCH] net: ipv4: add code comment for clarification

From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
	kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joe@perches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv4: add code comment for clarification
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 10:44:27 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170508104427.Horde.jrko8gSbk6ftIkwXE4ywgc5@gator4166.hostgator.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170508.113637.783558334411383400.davem@davemloft.net>

Hi David,

Quoting David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:

> From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:44:16 -0500
>
>> @@ -389,6 +389,12 @@ static int sk_diag_fill(struct sock *sk,  
>> struct sk_buff *skb,
>>  				  nlmsg_flags, unlh, net_admin);
>>  }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Ignore the position of the arguments req->id.idiag_dport and
>> + * req->id.idiag_sport in both calls to inet_lookup() and inet6_lookup()
>> + * functions, once this is a locked in behavior exposed to user space.
>> + * Changing this will break things for people.
>> + */
>
> This is implicit for every interface exposed to userspace.
>
> Therefore, saying it here and there in various comments provides
> questionable value.
>
> And in fact I think these arguments are probably in the correct order.
>
> I'm definitely not applying a patch like this, sorry.

I get it, thanks for clarifying.
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva