From: Toshiaki Makita

(2014/06/05 20:03), David Laight wrote:

quoted

From: Toshiaki Makita

quoted

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 <redacted>
---
 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