netdev - Re: [PATCH] bridge: control carrier based on ports online

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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