[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D755364.1050100@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:51:32 +0100
From: Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Adam Majer <adamm@...bino.com>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bridge: control carrier based on ports online
Le 07/03/2011 22:44, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:48:16 +0100
> Nicolas de Pesloüan<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 07/03/2011 19:34, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
[snip]
>>> list_for_each_entry(p,&br->port_list, list) {
>>> - if (p->state != BR_STATE_DISABLED) {
>>> - if (p->port_no == br->root_port) {
>>> - p->config_pending = 0;
>>> - p->topology_change_ack = 0;
>>> - br_make_forwarding(p);
>>> - } else if (br_is_designated_port(p)) {
>>> - del_timer(&p->message_age_timer);
>>> - br_make_forwarding(p);
>>> - } else {
>>> - p->config_pending = 0;
>>> - p->topology_change_ack = 0;
>>> - br_make_blocking(p);
>>> - }
>>> + if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + if (p->port_no == br->root_port) {
>>> + p->config_pending = 0;
>>> + p->topology_change_ack = 0;
>>> + br_make_forwarding(p);
>>> + } else if (br_is_designated_port(p)) {
>>> + del_timer(&p->message_age_timer);
>>> + br_make_forwarding(p);
>>> + } else {
>>> + p->config_pending = 0;
>>> + p->topology_change_ack = 0;
>>> + br_make_blocking(p);
>>
>> Is the above part really related to the purpose of this patch? It looks like (good) cleanup, but
>> should be in a different patch.
>>
>> Except from this comment,
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Nicolas de Pesloüan<nicolas.2p.debian@...e.fr>
>
> The loop is going over the state of ports.
> Since the new code at the end of loop has to check for STATE_FORWARDING
> it is clearer with continue statement. When adding code it is always
> better to clarify the logic in the process rather than making it
> more complex.
Sound's good to me. Thanks for clarifying.
Nicolas.
--
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