[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <977913cfd91b4c6d8fb2e25d8762aaee@garmin.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 22:30:22 +0000
From: "Huang, Joseph" <Joseph.Huang@...min.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bridge: Fix a deadlock when enabling multicast
snooping
> > + if (join_snoopers)
> > + br_multicast_join_snoopers(br);
> > + else if (leave_snoopers)
> > + br_multicast_leave_snoopers(br);
>
> If I'm not missing anything this can be just 1 bool like "change_snoopers" or
> something which if set to true will check BROPT_MULTICAST_ENABLED and
> act accordingly, i.e.
> if (change_snoopers) {
> if (br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MULTICAST_ENABLED))
> br_multicast_join_snoopers(br);
> else
> br_multicast_leave_snoopers(br); }
>
> This is not really something critical, just an observation. Up to your
> preference if you decide to leave it with 2 bools. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Nik
I wasn't sure how expensive the call to br_opt_get is, so I used a bool for each.
I just checked and it seems that br_opt_get is probably just as cheap as a bool,
so I'll change it according to what you suggested here.
Thanks for your comments!!
Thanks,
Joseph
Powered by blists - more mailing lists