This is for the recent kcm driver, which introduces AF_KCM(41) in
b7ac4eb(kcm: Kernel Connection Multiplexor module).
Signed-off-by: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]>
Cc: Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
---
net/core/sock.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
index b67b9ae..7e73c26 100644
--- a/net/core/sock.c
+++ b/net/core/sock.c
@@ -221,7 +221,8 @@ static const char *const af_family_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
"sk_lock-AF_TIPC" , "sk_lock-AF_BLUETOOTH", "sk_lock-IUCV" ,
"sk_lock-AF_RXRPC" , "sk_lock-AF_ISDN" , "sk_lock-AF_PHONET" ,
"sk_lock-AF_IEEE802154", "sk_lock-AF_CAIF" , "sk_lock-AF_ALG" ,
- "sk_lock-AF_NFC" , "sk_lock-AF_VSOCK" , "sk_lock-AF_MAX"
+ "sk_lock-AF_NFC" , "sk_lock-AF_VSOCK" , "sk_lock-AF_KCM" ,
+ "sk_lock-AF_MAX"
};
static const char *const af_family_slock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
"slock-AF_UNSPEC", "slock-AF_UNIX" , "slock-AF_INET" ,
@@ -237,7 +238,8 @@ static const char *const af_family_slock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
"slock-AF_TIPC" , "slock-AF_BLUETOOTH", "slock-AF_IUCV" ,
"slock-AF_RXRPC" , "slock-AF_ISDN" , "slock-AF_PHONET" ,
"slock-AF_IEEE802154", "slock-AF_CAIF" , "slock-AF_ALG" ,
- "slock-AF_NFC" , "slock-AF_VSOCK" ,"slock-AF_MAX"
+ "slock-AF_NFC" , "slock-AF_VSOCK" ,"slock-AF_KCM" ,
+ "slock-AF_MAX"
};
static const char *const af_family_clock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
"clock-AF_UNSPEC", "clock-AF_UNIX" , "clock-AF_INET" ,
@@ -253,7 +255,8 @@ static const char *const af_family_clock_key_strings[AF_MAX+1] = {
"clock-AF_TIPC" , "clock-AF_BLUETOOTH", "clock-AF_IUCV" ,
"clock-AF_RXRPC" , "clock-AF_ISDN" , "clock-AF_PHONET" ,
"clock-AF_IEEE802154", "clock-AF_CAIF" , "clock-AF_ALG" ,
- "clock-AF_NFC" , "clock-AF_VSOCK" , "clock-AF_MAX"
+ "clock-AF_NFC" , "clock-AF_VSOCK" , "clock-AF_KCM" ,
+ "clock-AF_MAX"
};
/*
--
2.1.0
Two things wrong with this submission:
1) You need to provide an initial "[PATCH net-next 0/3] ..." header posting
explaining at a high level what this patch series is about and how it is
implemented and why.
2) The net-next tree is closed at this time because we are in the merge window,
therefore no new feature patches should be submitted to the netdev mailing
list at this time. Please wait until some (reasonable) amount of time after
the merge window closes to resubmit this.
Thanks.
> From: David Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 23:28
> To: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; KY Srinivasan
> <[email protected]>; Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net: add the AF_KCM entries to family
> name tables
>
>
> Two things wrong with this submission:
>
> 1) You need to provide an initial "[PATCH net-next 0/3] ..." header posting
> explaining at a high level what this patch series is about and how it is
> implemented and why.
Hi David,
Thanks for the reply! I'll fix this.
> 2) The net-next tree is closed at this time because we are in the merge
> window,
> therefore no new feature patches should be submitted to the netdev
> mailing
> list at this time. Please wait until some (reasonable) amount of time after
> the merge window closes to resubmit this.
OK. I'll repost it when the merge window is open -- I suppose that would happen
in 1~2 weeks, according to my reading the documentation.
Thanks,
-- Dexuan