Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*

2021-02-08 Thread Jakub Kicinski
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 19:18:16 -0800 menglong8.d...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Menglong Dong > > The bit mask for MSG_* seems a little confused here. Replace it > with BIT() to make it clear to understand. > > Changes since v1: > - use BIT() instead of BIT_MASK() > > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*

2021-02-07 Thread Menglong Dong
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:52 PM Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:32 AM wrote: > > > > From: Menglong Dong > > > > The bit mask for MSG_* seems a little confused here. Replace it > > with BIT() to make it clear to understand. > > Now it's confusing which version maintainer shoul

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*

2021-02-07 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:32 AM wrote: > > From: Menglong Dong > > The bit mask for MSG_* seems a little confused here. Replace it > with BIT() to make it clear to understand. Now it's confusing which version maintainer should take (you forgot, it seems twice, to bump the patch version and mentio

[PATCH v2 net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*

2021-02-06 Thread menglong8 . dong
From: Menglong Dong The bit mask for MSG_* seems a little confused here. Replace it with BIT() to make it clear to understand. Changes since v1: - use BIT() instead of BIT_MASK() Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong --- include/linux/socket.h | 71 ++ 1 file ch

[PATCH v2 net-next] net: socket: use BIT() for MSG_*

2021-02-06 Thread menglong8 . dong
From: Menglong Dong The bit mask for MSG_* seems a little confused here. Replace it with BIT() to make it clear to understand. Changes since v1: - use BIT() instead of BIT_MASK() Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong --- include/linux/socket.h | 71 ++ 1 file ch