On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 10:03:19AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:Not related to the review of the patch itself: On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:13:40 +1100 David Gibson <david(a)gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:Yeah, I did wonder about there. There are a bunch of macros to make things not so long, but the names do seem less natural. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibsonOn Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:11:32PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:The reason why I went with this is that the one in netinet/ip6.h looks fairly unusable to me: there are no explicit fields for version and priority, and names are long and a bit obscure, as defined by RFC 3542: does 'ctlun' actually mean "control union"?[...] +struct ipv6hdr {Not really in scope for this patch, but I have wondered if we should try to use struct ip6_hdr from netinet/ip6.h instead of our own version (derived, I think, from the kernel one).