netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] bonding: add bond_set_slave

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]

Message-ID: <5329.1392689302@death.nxdomain>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:08:22 -0800
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
cc:	vfalico@...hat.com, andy@...yhouse.net, cwang@...pensource.com,
	jiri@...nulli.us, thomas@...nzmann.de, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	sfeldma@...ulusnetworks.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] bonding: add bond_set_slave_state/flags()

Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com> wrote:

>The new function could change the slave state and flags, then call
>rtmsg_ifinfo() according to the input parameters notify.
>
>Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
>Cc: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
>Cc: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
>Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>---
> drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h b/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h
>index 86ccfb9..d210124 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bonding.h
>@@ -303,6 +303,18 @@ static inline void bond_set_backup_slave(struct slave *slave)
> 	}
> }
>
>+static inline void bond_set_slave_state(struct slave *slave,
>+					int slave_state, bool notify)
>+{
>+	if (slave->backup != slave_state)
>+		slave->backup = slave_state;
>+	else
>+		return;
>+
>+	if (notify)
>+		rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, slave->dev, 0, GFP_KERNEL);

	I think this would be clearer if coded as:

	if (slave->backup == slave_slave)
		return;

	slave->backup = slave_state;
	if (notify)
		rtmsg_ifinfo(RTM_NEWLINK, slave->dev, 0, GFP_KERNEL);

>+}
>+
> static inline void bond_slave_state_change(struct bonding *bond)
> {
> 	struct list_head *iter;
>@@ -408,6 +420,20 @@ static inline void bond_set_slave_active_flags(struct slave *slave)
> 	slave->inactive = 0;
> }
>
>+static inline void bond_set_slave_flags(struct slave *slave,
>+					int state, bool notify)
>+
>+{
>+	if (state == BOND_STATE_ACTIVE) {
>+		bond_set_slave_state(slave, state, notify);
>+		slave->inactive = 0;
>+	} else if (state == BOND_STATE_BACKUP && !bond_is_lb(slave->bond)) {
>+		bond_set_slave_state(slave, state, notify);
>+		if (!slave->bond->params.all_slaves_active)
>+			slave->inactive = 1;
>+	}
>+}

	As I said in my other reply, I don't see why this shouldn't be
integrated into the existing state change functions instead of creating
a new function.

	-J

> static inline bool bond_is_slave_inactive(struct slave *slave)
> {
> 	return slave->inactive;
>-- 
>1.8.0

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com

--
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