[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <539052C0.2090409@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:21:36 +0900
From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bridge: Fix incorrect judgment of promisc
(2014/06/05 20:03), David Laight wrote:
> From: Toshiaki Makita
>> br_manage_promisc() incorrectly expects br_auto_port() to return only 0
>> or 1, while it actually returns flags, i.e., a subset of BR_AUTO_MASK.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
>> ---
>> net/bridge/br_if.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> index a08d2b8..6a07a40 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
>> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ void br_manage_promisc(struct net_bridge *br)
>> * This lets us disable promiscuous mode and write
>> * this config to hw.
>> */
>> - if (br->auto_cnt <= br_auto_port(p))
>> + if (br->auto_cnt <= !!br_auto_port(p))
>> br_port_clear_promisc(p);
>> else
>> br_port_set_promisc(p);
>
> Why not the less confusing:
> if (br->auto_cnt || br_auto_port(p))
> and reverse the then/else lines?
I'm respecting the original style, but I'm not particular about this style.
I'll make less confusing one, thanks :)
(Your suggested condition is not exactly the same as current one, even
if reversing if/else. v2 will be different than it. Anyway, thanks.)
Toshiaki Makita
--
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