On 06/06/2014 04:48 AM, David Laight wrote: > From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> 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> >> >> I'm applying this as-is for now, even though I saw the other >> suggestions in this thread (which BTW didn't get picked up by >> patchwork, maybe some of you dropped the Message-Id in your replies by >> accident). > > I don't have a problem with that. > The condition looks odd, but it is enabling promiscuous mode > if any other ports are in 'auto' mode. No, the condition is correct and explicit. The cases are: 0 auto ports == all ports are statically configured and non-promisc. 1 auto port == only this port can be non-promisc. all others promisc. > 1 auto port == all ports promisc. -vlad > Possibly the comment above made that clear, but it was truncated > in the diffs. > > David > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
