[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260208161317.GN154003@shredder>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:13:17 +0200
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
To: Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
Cc: bridge@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Xiao Liang <shaw.leon@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 14/14] net: bridge: mcast: add inactive state
assertions
On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 03:52:20AM +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> @@ -1418,10 +1418,29 @@ static struct sk_buff *br_multicast_alloc_query(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static void br_ip4_multicast_assert_inactive(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(br_multicast_snooping_active(brmctx, htons(ETH_P_IP), NULL));
Can't this be WARN_ON_ONCE()? If something is actually wrong, WARN_ON()
has the potential to flood the kernel log
> +}
> +
> +static void br_ip6_multicast_assert_inactive(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(br_multicast_snooping_active(brmctx, htons(ETH_P_IPV6), NULL));
Same
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists