[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130927145825.GA14139@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:58:25 +0200
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, nikolay@...hat.com,
bhutchings@...arflare.com, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] bonding: remove __get_first_port()
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:50:12PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
>> @@ -2104,8 +2091,11 @@ void bond_3ad_state_machine_handler(struct work_struct *work)
>>
>> // check if agg_select_timer timer after initialize is timed out
>> if (BOND_AD_INFO(bond).agg_select_timer && !(--BOND_AD_INFO(bond).agg_select_timer)) {
>> + slave = bond_first_slave(bond);
>> + port = slave ? &(SLAVE_AD_INFO(slave).port) : NULL;
>> +
>> // select the active aggregator for the bond
>> - if ((port = __get_first_port(bond))) {
>> + if (port) {
>> if (!port->slave) {
>> pr_warning("%s: Warning: bond's first port is uninitialized\n",
>> bond->dev->name);
>> --
>
>Looks like that could be:
> slave = bond_first_slave(bond);
> if (slave) {
> port = SLAVE_AD_INFO(slave).port;
>and I assume 'slave == port->slave' so there is no need for the latter check?
I've also fallen to this trap at first - slave->port can (virtually) be
NULL, and this way we'll panic on "if (!port->slave)".
>
> David
>
>
>
--
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