On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 06:43:01AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
I dont know how compilation will fail but you may be right with note:
that is not how pads have been used in the past. They are supposed to
cosmetic annotation which indicates "here's a hole; use it in the
future if you are looking to add something". And someone in the
future can claim them. I am not sure if MBZ philosophy applies.
This structure is uapi, so anyone has complete rights to reference
@pad in the userspace programs. Sure it would be more clear to remove
the @pad completely, but if we choose so I think it's better to do
on top instead and then if someone complain we can easily revert
the single trivial commit instead of this big patch.
If protocol goes over u8 then complete inet_diag_req_v2 structure will
have to be reworked becaue @sdiag_protocol is u8 as well. IOW, once
someone liftup IPPROTO_MAX > 255, he will notice the problem immediately
because diag for such module simply stop working properly.