[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140515191806.GB25181@mikrodark.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:18:07 +0200
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
To: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.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
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:32:41AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>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).
Yeah, good idea, will do and resubmit.
Thank you!
>
> -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