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 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BB9C433F5 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 02:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21C461212 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 02:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239497AbhJPCPL (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2021 22:15:11 -0400 Received: from pi.codeconstruct.com.au ([203.29.241.158]:39282 "EHLO codeconstruct.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232812AbhJPCPJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2021 22:15:09 -0400 Received: from pecola.lan (unknown [159.196.93.152]) by mail.codeconstruct.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9485C20222; Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:12:59 +0800 (AWST) Message-ID: <37c35854b5f351dc1d06f17ea63c1009e4d9b944.camel@codeconstruct.com.au> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 04/15] mctp: Add sockaddr_mctp to uapi From: Jeremy Kerr To: Eugene Syromiatnikov Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Matt Johnston , Andrew Jeffery , Jakub Kicinski , "David S. Miller" Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:12:58 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20211015170020.GB16157@asgard.redhat.com> References: <20210729022053.134453-1-jk@codeconstruct.com.au> <20210729022053.134453-5-jk@codeconstruct.com.au> <20211015170020.GB16157@asgard.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Hi Eugene, > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 10:20:42AM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > >  struct sockaddr_mctp { > > +       unsigned short int      smctp_family; > > +       int                     smctp_network; > > struct mctp_skb_cb.net (as well as struct mctp_dev.net) are unsigned, > is it intentional that this field (along with struct > mctp_sock.bind_net) differs in signedness? No, that's not intentional - I'll submit a patch to unify those. Thanks for the review. Cheers, Jeremy