On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 09:04:32AM +0100, Henning Rogge wrote:
> err = -ENXIO;
> -enddel:
> +enddelpath:
Concur about it being better to leave this label alone, also the diff looks
weird because it continues:
> + mesh_paths_generation++;
> + spin_unlock(&tbl->hashwlock[hash_idx]);
> + read_unlock_bh(&pathtbl_resize_lock);
> + return err;
> +}
[...]
> + err = -ENXIO;
> +enddelmpp:
> mesh_paths_generation++;
> spin_unlock(&tbl->hashwlock[hash_idx]);
> read_unlock_bh(&pathtbl_resize_lock);
At first I wondered why the last half of the function was changed, but then
I saw that. Shouldn't the above be "mpp_paths_generation++;"?
In general I'd like to merge these two into one function; the only thing
different is the initial table pointer that gets dereferenced and the
generation counter (and now the labels). So something like this should
be doable:
static int mesh_table_delete(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
struct mesh_table *tbl,
const u8 *addr)
{
/* basically what mesh_path_del is today */
}
int mesh_path_del(...)
{
tbl = resize_dereference_mesh_paths();
ret = mesh_table_delete(sdata, tbl, addr);
mesh_paths_generation++;
return ret;
}
int mpp_path_del(...)
{
tbl = resize_dereference_mpp_paths();
ret = mesh_table_delete(sdata, tbl, addr);
mpp_paths_generation++;
return ret;
}
--
Bob Copeland %% http://bobcopeland.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
