Den tors 24 jan. 2019 kl 14:08 skrev Daniel Borkmann <dan...@iogearbox.net>:
>
[...]
> >>> +#ifndef _LINUX_XDP_DIAG_H
> >>> +#define _LINUX_XDP_DIAG_H
> >>> +
> >>> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>> +
> >>> +struct xdp_diag_req {
> >>> + __u8 sdiag_family;
> >>> + __u8 sdiag_protocol;
> >>> + __u16 pad;
> >>
> >> Presumably this one is for future use? Maybe better as '__u16 :16;' to
> >> avoid compile errors if someone tries to zero 'pad' member manually?
> >
> > The "pad" was there simply to have an explicitly named structure hole.
> > I'm not following the bitfield argument. Why does that avoid compiler
> > errors?
>
> Mostly in the sense that an application would explicitly set 'pad = 0'
> whereas pad could later on potentially be renamed and reused otherwise
> (which __u16 :16 would avoid in first place). But looking at other
> *_diag_req structs, it's explicitly named as 'pad' elsewhere already,
> then nevermind, lets have it rather consistent then and keep as is.
>
Ok, thanks for clearing it up. I'll address all your comments, and
also adds a "pad" member in msg for consistency.
> One small thing I still spotted when looking at it again, in function
> xsk_diag_handler_dump() the req is unused.
>
Ah, thank you.
Björn
> Thanks,
> Daniel
