Re: [net-next 1/5] tipc: obsolete TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE

[Jiri Pirko]

Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:27:17PM CET, jon.ma...@ericsson.com wrote:
>No, it won't. I just moved those functions and #defines to the bottom of the 
>same file, and marked them as 'deprecated'.

Ah. That I missed. Thanks!

RE: [net-next 1/5] tipc: obsolete TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE

[Jon Maloy]

No, it won't. I just moved those functions and #defines to the bottom of the 
same file, and marked them as 'deprecated'.

BR
///jon

> -Original Message-
> From: Jiri Pirko [mailto:j...@resnulli.us]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:11
> To: Jon Maloy <jon.ma...@ericsson.com>
> Cc: da...@davemloft.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Mohan Krishna Ghanta
> Krishnamurthy <mohan.krishna.ghanta.krishnamur...@ericsson.com>; Tung
> Quang Nguyen <tung.q.ngu...@dektech.com.au>; Hoang Huu Le
> <hoang.h...@dektech.com.au>; Canh Duc Luu
> <canh.d@dektech.com.au>; Ying Xue <ying@windriver.com>; tipc-
> discuss...@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [net-next 1/5] tipc: obsolete TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE
> 
> Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 04:48:51PM CET, jon.ma...@ericsson.com wrote:
> >Publications for TIPC_CLUSTER_SCOPE and TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE are in all
> >aspects handled the same way, both on the publishing node and on the
> >receiving nodes.
> >
> >Despite previous ambitions to the contrary, this is never going to
> >change, so we take the conseqeunce of this and obsolete
> TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE
> >and related macros/functions. Whenever a user is doing a bind() or a
> >sendmsg() attempt using ZONE_SCOPE we translate this internally to
> >CLUSTER_SCOPE, while we remain compatible with users and remote nodes
> still using ZONE_SCOPE.
> >
> >Furthermore, the non-formalized scope value 0 has always been permitted
> >for use during lookup, with the same meaning as
> ZONE_SCOPE/CLUSTER_SCOPE.
> >We now permit it even as binding scope, but for compatibility reasons
> >we choose to not change the value of TIPC_CLUSTER_SCOPE.
> >
> >Acked-by: Ying Xue <ying@windriver.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jon.ma...@ericsson.com>
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> >diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h b/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h
> >index 14bacc7..4ac9f1f 100644
> >--- a/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h
> >+++ b/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h
> >@@ -61,50 +61,6 @@ struct tipc_name_seq {
> > __u32 upper;
> > };
> >
> >-/* TIPC Address Size, Offset, Mask specification for Z.C.N
> >- */
> >-#define TIPC_NODE_BITS  12
> >-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_BITS   12
> >-#define TIPC_ZONE_BITS  8
> >-
> >-#define TIPC_NODE_OFFSET0
> >-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET TIPC_NODE_BITS
> >-#define TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET(TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET +
> TIPC_CLUSTER_BITS)
> >-
> >-#define TIPC_NODE_SIZE  ((1UL << TIPC_NODE_BITS) - 1)
> >-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_SIZE   ((1UL << TIPC_CLUSTER_BITS) - 1)
> >-#define TIPC_ZONE_SIZE  ((1UL << TIPC_ZONE_BITS) - 1)
> >-
> >-#define TIPC_NODE_MASK  (TIPC_NODE_SIZE <<
> TIPC_NODE_OFFSET)
> >-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_MASK   (TIPC_CLUSTER_SIZE <<
> TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET)
> >-#define TIPC_ZONE_MASK  (TIPC_ZONE_SIZE <<
> TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET)
> >-
> >-#define TIPC_ZONE_CLUSTER_MASK (TIPC_ZONE_MASK |
> TIPC_CLUSTER_MASK)
> >-
> >-static inline __u32 tipc_addr(unsigned int zone,
> >-  unsigned int cluster,
> >-  unsigned int node)
> >-{
> >-return (zone << TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET) |
> >-(cluster << TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET) |
> >-node;
> >-}
> >-
> >-static inline unsigned int tipc_zone(__u32 addr) -{
> >-return addr >> TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET;
> >-}
> >-
> >-static inline unsigned int tipc_cluster(__u32 addr) -{
> >-return (addr & TIPC_CLUSTER_MASK) >> TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET;
> >-}
> >-
> >-static inline unsigned int tipc_node(__u32 addr) -{
> >-return addr & TIPC_NODE_MASK;
> >-}
> 
> If someone includes tipc.h and uses any of this, your patch is going to break
> his compilation. Would anyone have good reason to use any of this?

Re: [net-next 1/5] tipc: obsolete TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE

[Jiri Pirko]

Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 04:48:51PM CET, jon.ma...@ericsson.com wrote:
>Publications for TIPC_CLUSTER_SCOPE and TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE are in all
>aspects handled the same way, both on the publishing node and on the
>receiving nodes.
>
>Despite previous ambitions to the contrary, this is never going to change,
>so we take the conseqeunce of this and obsolete TIPC_ZONE_SCOPE and related
>macros/functions. Whenever a user is doing a bind() or a sendmsg() attempt
>using ZONE_SCOPE we translate this internally to CLUSTER_SCOPE, while we
>remain compatible with users and remote nodes still using ZONE_SCOPE.
>
>Furthermore, the non-formalized scope value 0 has always been permitted
>for use during lookup, with the same meaning as ZONE_SCOPE/CLUSTER_SCOPE.
>We now permit it even as binding scope, but for compatibility reasons we
>choose to not change the value of TIPC_CLUSTER_SCOPE.
>
>Acked-by: Ying Xue 
>Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy 

[...]


>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h b/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h
>index 14bacc7..4ac9f1f 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/tipc.h
>@@ -61,50 +61,6 @@ struct tipc_name_seq {
>   __u32 upper;
> };
> 
>-/* TIPC Address Size, Offset, Mask specification for Z.C.N
>- */
>-#define TIPC_NODE_BITS  12
>-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_BITS   12
>-#define TIPC_ZONE_BITS  8
>-
>-#define TIPC_NODE_OFFSET0
>-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET TIPC_NODE_BITS
>-#define TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET(TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET + TIPC_CLUSTER_BITS)
>-
>-#define TIPC_NODE_SIZE  ((1UL << TIPC_NODE_BITS) - 1)
>-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_SIZE   ((1UL << TIPC_CLUSTER_BITS) - 1)
>-#define TIPC_ZONE_SIZE  ((1UL << TIPC_ZONE_BITS) - 1)
>-
>-#define TIPC_NODE_MASK(TIPC_NODE_SIZE << TIPC_NODE_OFFSET)
>-#define TIPC_CLUSTER_MASK (TIPC_CLUSTER_SIZE << TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET)
>-#define TIPC_ZONE_MASK(TIPC_ZONE_SIZE << TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET)
>-
>-#define TIPC_ZONE_CLUSTER_MASK (TIPC_ZONE_MASK | TIPC_CLUSTER_MASK)
>-
>-static inline __u32 tipc_addr(unsigned int zone,
>-unsigned int cluster,
>-unsigned int node)
>-{
>-  return (zone << TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET) |
>-  (cluster << TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET) |
>-  node;
>-}
>-
>-static inline unsigned int tipc_zone(__u32 addr)
>-{
>-  return addr >> TIPC_ZONE_OFFSET;
>-}
>-
>-static inline unsigned int tipc_cluster(__u32 addr)
>-{
>-  return (addr & TIPC_CLUSTER_MASK) >> TIPC_CLUSTER_OFFSET;
>-}
>-
>-static inline unsigned int tipc_node(__u32 addr)
>-{
>-  return addr & TIPC_NODE_MASK;
>-}

If someone includes tipc.h and uses any of this, your patch is going to
break his compilation. Would anyone have good reason to use any of this?