[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110308071805.GB2826@psychotron.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:18:06 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To: Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.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
Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:55:12PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com wrote:
>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.
Hmm. I thought that the comment is accurate. BOND_STATE_ACTIVE
corresponds with 0, BOND_STATE_BACKUP corresponds with 1. Anyway, let me
know how would you like to formulate this and I can repost (or do a
little comment-changing followup)
Thanks Nicolas
>
> 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