[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10534.1400178761@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:32:41 -0700
From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 5/9] bonding: create a macro for bond mode and use it
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com> wrote:
>On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:51:51AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>>Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>>CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
>>>CC: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
>>>Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
>>>---
>...snip...
>> Would it be better to use "bond_uses_primary(struct bonding *)"
>>instead of the above? That would simplify the above calling pattern,
>>and shorten the calls elsewhere. Maybe I missed one, but it looks like
>>all of the calls to _uses_primary have BOND_MODE(bond) as the argument.
>
>There's at least one call, when checking the params, where it checks the
>int:
>
>bond_main.c:
>4271 if (primary && !bond_mode_uses_primary(bond_mode)) {
>
>so, either we'll use something else here, or leave it with BOND_MODE()...
The something else isn't so bad, and would look better for most
callers:
static inline bool bond_uses_primary(struct bonding *bond)
{
return bond_mode_uses_primary(bond->params.mode);
}
This ends up replacing "USES_PRIMARY(bond->params.mode)" with
"bond_uses_primary(bond)" for most call sites, which actually looks like
an improvement (it's even shorter).
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists