netdev - Re: [patch net-next-2.6 4/8] bonding: wrap slave state work

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 20:55:12 +0100
From:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6 4/8] bonding: wrap slave state work

Le 07/03/2011 10:58, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>>>
>>> +static inline void bond_set_active_slave(struct slave *slave)
>>> +{
>>> +	slave->backup = 0;
>>
>> In the comment above, you said that the possible value for backup
>> corresponds with BOND_STATE_ACTIVE and BOND_STATE_BACKUP.
>>
>> So, should be:
>>
>> slave->backup = BOND_STATE_ACTIVE;
>>
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline void bond_set_backup_slave(struct slave *slave)
>>> +{
>>> +	slave->backup = 1;
>>
>> slave->backup = BOND_STATE_BACKUP;
>>
>
> Well, I think it's weird and misleading to assign some define to :1
> bitfield. Should be 0 or 1, nothing else.

Agreed, but the comment appears missleading... May be you should fix the comment, not the code.

	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