On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 12:24:47PM +0000, Alvin Šipraga wrote:
On 10/26/21 18:26, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
quoted
I have seen too many bugs already due to the fact that we must encode an
invalid dp->bridge_num as a negative value, because the natural tendency
is to check that invalid value using (!dp->bridge_num). Latest example
can be seen in commit 1bec0f05062c ("net: dsa: fix bridge_num not
getting cleared after ports leaving the bridge").
Convert the existing users to assume that dp->bridge_num == 0 is the
encoding for invalid, and valid bridge numbers start from 1.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
---
Reviewed-by: Alvin Šipraga <redacted>
Thanks for the review.
Small remark inline.
quoted
-int dsa_bridge_num_get(const struct net_device *bridge_dev, int max)
+unsigned int dsa_bridge_num_get(const struct net_device *bridge_dev, int max)
{
- int bridge_num = dsa_bridge_num_find(bridge_dev);
+ unsigned int bridge_num = dsa_bridge_num_find(bridge_dev);
- if (bridge_num < 0) {
+ if (!bridge_num) {
/* First port that offloads TX forwarding for this bridge */
Perhaps you want to update this comment in patch 2/6, since bridge_num
is no longer just about TX forwarding offload.
quoted
- bridge_num = find_first_zero_bit(&dsa_fwd_offloading_bridges,
- DSA_MAX_NUM_OFFLOADING_BRIDGES);
+ bridge_num = find_next_zero_bit(&dsa_fwd_offloading_bridges,
+ DSA_MAX_NUM_OFFLOADING_BRIDGES,
+ 1);
I will update this comment in patch 2 to say "First port that requests
FDB isolation or TX forwarding offload for this bridge". Sounds ok?