Hi Paolo,
+cc Florian
Thank you for the reviews!
On 17/10/2019 15:26, Paolo Abeni wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 16:27 +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #233: FILE: net/mptcp/options.c:47:
> + * negotiated, the receiver MUST close the subflow with a RST as it
is
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> to be squashed in "mptcp: Handle MPTCP TCP options"
>
> net/mptcp/options.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/mptcp/options.c b/net/mptcp/options.c
> index cee4280647fe..adf65d3ff27b 100644
> --- a/net/mptcp/options.c
> +++ b/net/mptcp/options.c
> @@ -44,8 +44,8 @@ void mptcp_parse_option(const unsigned char *ptr, int opsize,
> *
> * Section 3.3.0:
> * "If a checksum is not present when its use has been
> - * negotiated, the receiver MUST close the subflow with a RST as it is
> - * considered broken."
> + * negotiated, the receiver MUST close the subflow with a RST as
> + * it is considered broken."
> *
> * We don't implement DSS checksum - fall back to TCP.
> */
This one and the next 2 patches are IMHO uncontroversially good, but
the 4th is a bit against my personal taste - I would keep the
checkpatch offenders instead;). No objections on the 5th patch.
I am fine to drop the 4th one. Florian mentioned earlier that it is
better to fix checkpatch issues than having comments about that during
the reviews or dedicated patches later to fix just that. But because
Florian wrote this code (mptcp_snmp_list + linux_mptcp_mib_field), I
guess he is also fine not to follow checkpatch rules :)
I am going to apply the other patches, they are not linked to each others.
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthieu Baerts | R&D Engineer
matthieu.baerts(a)tessares.net
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium