From: Toshiaki Makita
> (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 <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> 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.)
A quick truth table:
auto_cnt auto_port set/clear
0 0 clear
0 1 clear
1 0 set
1 1 clear
2+ 0/1 clear
So you want:
if (br->auto_cnt && !br_auto_port(p))
br_port_set_promisc(p);
else
br_port_clear_promisc(p);
Does seem like a strange condition.
David
