(2014/06/05 20:03), David Laight wrote: > From: Toshiaki Makita >> 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 <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> 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.) Toshiaki Makita
