On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:24:33 +0200 Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 07:52:17PM CEST, fbl@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:27:00 +0200 > >Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> + /* > >> + * To prevent loops, check if dev is not upper device to upper_dev. > >> + */ > >> + if (__netdev_has_upper_dev(upper_dev, dev, true)) > >> + return -EBUSY; > >> + > >> + if (__netdev_find_upper(dev, upper_dev)) > >> + return -EEXIST; > > > >__netdev_has_upper_dev() can go all the way up finding the device and > >the __netdev_find_upper() just check the first level. > > > I do not think this ordering is somewhat inportant. it's not the order, see below: > >I think it would be better to use: > >__netdev_find_upper_dev(,,deep=true/false) > >__netdev_has_upper(,) It's their names. Currently, the function ..._find_... look at one level only, while the function ..._has_... does one or more levels. I think it's better to swap 'has' and 'find' in their names: __netdev_find_upper_dev(,,deep=true/false) <-- find in all levels __netdev_has_upper(,) <-- check only the one level. fbl
