[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160406.161043.260012491646006960.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:10:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp
Cc: lucien.xin@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
hannes@...essinduktion.org, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 3/6] bridge: simplify the stp_state_store by
calling store_bridge_parm
From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:08:13 +0900
> On 2016/04/05 12:32, Xin Long wrote:
>> There are some repetitive codes in stp_state_store, we can remove
>> them by calling store_bridge_parm.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>> ---
>> net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c | 24 +++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c b/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
>> index 137cd3b..9918763 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_sysfs_br.c
>> @@ -128,27 +128,17 @@ static ssize_t stp_state_show(struct device *d,
>> }
>>
>>
>> +static int set_stp_state(struct net_bridge *br, unsigned long val)
>> +{
>
> You forgot to add rtnl lock here?
> The missing lock is restored in patch 4, but at this point bisect could
> break..
Agreed, this has to be fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists