[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220614205258.500bade8@hermes.local>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 20:52:58 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] Bonding: add per-port priority for failover
re-selection
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 11:29:34 +0800
Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c
> index 5a6f44455b95..41b3244747fa 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_netlink.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ static size_t bond_get_slave_size(const struct net_device *bond_dev,
> nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) + /* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_AD_AGGREGATOR_ID */
> nla_total_size(sizeof(u8)) + /* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_AD_ACTOR_OPER_PORT_STATE */
> nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) + /* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_AD_PARTNER_OPER_PORT_STATE */
> + nla_total_size(sizeof(s32)) + /* IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_PRIO */
> 0;
> }
Why the choice to make it signed? It would be clearer as unsigned value.
Also, using full 32 bits seems like overkill.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists