> On Jan 23, 2021, at 5:13 PM, David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/23/21 1:00 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 22:16:41 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 1/22/21 9:02 PM, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
>>>> Why can't we get rid of the special case for 0 and simply make 1024 the
>>>> default value?
>>>
>>> That would work too.
>>
>> Should we drop it then? Easier to bring it back than to change the
>> interpretation later. It doesn't seem to serve any clear purpose right
>> now.
>>
>> (Praveen if you post v4 please take a look at the checkpatch --strict
>> warnings and address the ones which make sense, e.g. drop the brackets
>> around comparisons, those are just noise, basic grasp of C operator
>> precedence can be assumed in readers of kernel code).
>>
>
> let's do a v4.
>
> Praveen: set the initial value to IP6_RT_PRIO_USER, do not allow 0,
> remove the checks on value and don't forget to update documentation.
>
Sure, I will respin V4, with above mentioned changes. Also, I will address
checkpatch --strict warnings.
I wanted to set initial value to IP6_RT_PRIO_USER in v1, but avoided till
review for 2 simple coding reasons:
1.) IP6_RT_PRIO_USER must be exposed in net/ipv6/addrconf.c by including
include/uapi/linux/ipv6_route.h.
2.) If rt6_add_dflt_router() will be called from other files in future,
IP6_RT_PRIO_USER should be included in all those files as well, because caller
will pass most probably default value.
> Oh and cc me on the next otherwise the review depends on me finding time
> to scan netdev.
Sure, I will cc you and will add “Reviewed by” as well. I will also send you
the lkml link to v4.
Thanks Jakub and you for reviewing this over the weekend.
