On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:48:16 +0100
Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le 07/03/2011 19:34, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> > This makes the bridge device behave like a physical device.
> > In earlier releases the bridge always asserted carrier. This
> > changes the behavior so that bridge device carrier is on only
> > if one or more ports are in the forwarding state. This
> > should help IPv6 autoconfiguration, DHCP, and routing daemons.
> >
> > I did brief testing with Network and Virt manager and they
> > seem fine, but since this changes behavior of bridge, it should
> > wait until net-next (2.6.39).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger<shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > net/bridge/br_device.c | 4 ++++
> > net/bridge/br_stp.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > net/bridge/br_stp_timer.c | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c 2011-03-07 08:40:08.913599513 -0800
> > +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c 2011-03-07 08:40:48.382377389 -0800
> > @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@ static int br_dev_open(struct net_device
> > {
> > struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
> >
> > + netif_carrier_off(dev);
> > +
> > br_features_recompute(br);
> > netif_start_queue(dev);
> > br_stp_enable_bridge(br);
> > @@ -94,6 +96,8 @@ static int br_dev_stop(struct net_device
> > {
> > struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
> >
> > + netif_carrier_off(dev);
> > +
> > br_stp_disable_bridge(br);
> > br_multicast_stop(br);
> >
> > --- a/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2011-03-07 08:41:58.619783678 -0800
> > +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp.c 2011-03-07 08:53:58.953558810 -0800
> > @@ -397,28 +397,37 @@ static void br_make_forwarding(struct ne
> > void br_port_state_selection(struct net_bridge *br)
> > {
> > struct net_bridge_port *p;
> > + unsigned int liveports = 0;
> >
> > /* Don't change port states if userspace is handling STP */
> > if (br->stp_enabled == BR_USER_STP)
> > return;
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(p,&br->port_list, list) {
> > - if (p->state != BR_STATE_DISABLED) {
> > - if (p->port_no == br->root_port) {
> > - p->config_pending = 0;
> > - p->topology_change_ack = 0;
> > - br_make_forwarding(p);
> > - } else if (br_is_designated_port(p)) {
> > - del_timer(&p->message_age_timer);
> > - br_make_forwarding(p);
> > - } else {
> > - p->config_pending = 0;
> > - p->topology_change_ack = 0;
> > - br_make_blocking(p);
> > - }
> > + if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (p->port_no == br->root_port) {
> > + p->config_pending = 0;
> > + p->topology_change_ack = 0;
> > + br_make_forwarding(p);
> > + } else if (br_is_designated_port(p)) {
> > + del_timer(&p->message_age_timer);
> > + br_make_forwarding(p);
> > + } else {
> > + p->config_pending = 0;
> > + p->topology_change_ack = 0;
> > + br_make_blocking(p);
>
> Is the above part really related to the purpose of this patch? It looks like (good) cleanup, but
> should be in a different patch.
>
> Except from this comment,
>
> Reviewed-by: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxx>
The loop is going over the state of ports.
Since the new code at the end of loop has to check for STATE_FORWARDING
it is clearer with continue statement. When adding code it is always
better to clarify the logic in the process rather than making it
more complex.
--
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
