On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:23:53 +0100 David Lamparter <equinox@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The patch effectively does: > - br_log_state(p); > p->state = BR_STATE_DISABLED; > + br_log_state(p); > > and the issue it is trying to fix is not the timing but rather the code > printing the wrong (old, now-left) state. > > I do agree that the log message should be printed before anything > happens, so, Holger, can you brew a patch that does that? Other than being horribly strict, why bother? I hope you aren't building some application that depends on the ordering of the log message. The state change doesn't get undone, why does the order of the message matter at all? _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
