[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289827987.2607.50.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:33:07 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: shemminger@...tta.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] bridge: RCU annotation and cleanup
Le lundi 15 novembre 2010 à 21:23 +0900, Tetsuo Handa a écrit :
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > This is a split up of what Eric did with a couple of small changes and additions.
> Something seems to be wrong with this patchset.
>
> --- a/net/bridge/br_input.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_input.c
> > @@ -173,8 +177,8 @@ forward:
> > switch (p->state) {
> > case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
> > rhook = rcu_dereference(br_should_route_hook);
> > - if (rhook != NULL) {
> > - if (rhook(skb))
> > + if (rhook) {
> > + if ((*rhook)(skb))
>
> Is *rhook != NULL guaranteed when rhook != NULL?
Its the C standard convention, we call function pointed by rhook, not
*rhook.
$ cat func.c
typedef int (*hook_t)(int a1, int a2);
hook_t *hook;
int foo(int a1, int a2)
{
hook_t *handler = hook;
if (handler)
return handler(a1, a2);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -O2 -c func.c
func.c: In function ‘foo’:
func.c:10:17: error: called object ‘handler’ is not a function
Now, if we use (*handler), it works :
$ cat func.c
typedef int (*hook_t)(int a1, int a2);
hook_t *hook;
int foo(int a1, int a2)
{
hook_t *handler = hook;
if (handler)
return (*handler)(a1, a2);
return 0;
}
$ gcc -O2 -c func.c
$
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists