On 2/11/2025 12:17 PM, Thorsten Blum wrote:

On 11. Feb 2025, at 11:49, Mateusz Polchlopek wrote:

quoted

On 2/11/2025 11:20 AM, Thorsten Blum wrote:

quoted

Remove commented out code.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@linux.dev>
---
  include/linux/sctp.h | 1 -
  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sctp.h b/include/linux/sctp.h
index 836a7e200f39..812011d8b67e 100644
--- a/include/linux/sctp.h
+++ b/include/linux/sctp.h

@@ -222,7 +222,6 @@ struct sctp_datahdr {
   __be16 stream;
   __be16 ssn;
   __u32 ppid;
- /* __u8  payload[]; */
  };
    struct sctp_data_chunk {

Hi Thorsten

I don't think we want to remove that piece of code, please refer
to the discussion under the link:

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1681917361.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com/ (local)

Hm, the commit message (dbda0fba7a14) says payload was deleted because
"the member is not even used anywhere," but it was just commented out.
In the cover letter it then explains that "deleted" actually means
"commented out."

However, I can't follow the reasoning in the cover letter either:

"Note that instead of completely deleting it, we just leave it as a
comment in the struct, signalling to the reader that we do expect
such variable parameters over there, as Marcelo suggested."

Where do I find Marcelo's suggestion and the "variable parameters over
there?"

That's good question, I can't find the Marcelo suggestion that author
mention. It's hard to find without links to previous series or
discussion :/

I guess it should be also commented by maintainers, I see that in the
Xin's thread Kuba also commented change with commenting out instead
of removing code. Let's wait

Thanks,
Thorsten