On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 12:03:22AM +0200, Linus Lüssing wrote:
[...] +enum batadv_forw_mode +batadv_mcast_forw_mode(struct sk_buff *skb, struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) +{
- struct ethhdr *ethhdr = (struct ethhdr *)(skb->data);
- int ret;
- ret = batadv_mcast_forw_mode_check(skb, bat_priv);
- if (ret == -ENOMEM)
return BATADV_FORW_NONE;- else if (ret == -EINVAL)
Shouldn't this better be "ret < 0", in case you add more error cases later?
return BATADV_FORW_ALL;
- count = batadv_tt_global_hash_count(bat_priv, ethhdr->h_dest,
- ret = batadv_tt_global_hash_count(bat_priv, ethhdr->h_dest, BATADV_NO_FLAGS);
- switch (count) {
- switch (ret) { case 0: return BATADV_FORW_NONE; case 1:
@@ -263,6 +348,28 @@ batadv_mcast_forw_mode(struct sk_buff *skb, struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) }
/**
- batadv_mcast_tvlv_update_flag_counter - update the counter of a flag
- @flag: the flag we want to update counters for
- @flag_counter: the counter we might update
- @new_flags: the new capability bitset of a node
- @old_flags: the current, to be updated bitset of a node
- Update the given flag_counter with the help of the new flag information
- of a node to reflect how many nodes have the given flag unset.
- */
+static void batadv_mcast_tvlv_update_flag_counter(uint8_t flag,
atomic_t *flag_counter,uint8_t new_flags,int old_flags)
Why are parts of the bitsets uint8_t, some int?
Also, this function should go into one of the previous patches, this has nothing to do with IPv4 but is just a refactoring.
+{
- if (!(new_flags & flag) &&
(old_flags & flag || old_flags & BATADV_UNINIT_FLAGS))atomic_inc(flag_counter);- else if (new_flags & flag && !(old_flags & flag))
atomic_dec(flag_counter);+}
+/**
- batadv_mcast_tvlv_ogm_handler_v1 - process incoming multicast tvlv container
- @bat_priv: the bat priv with all the soft interface information
- @orig: the orig_node of the ogm
@@ -285,13 +392,14 @@ static void batadv_mcast_tvlv_ogm_handler_v1(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, (tvlv_value) && (tvlv_value_len == sizeof(mcast_flags))) mcast_flags = *(uint8_t *)tvlv_value;
- if (!(mcast_flags & BATADV_MCAST_LISTENER_ANNOUNCEMENT) &&
(orig->mcast_flags & BATADV_MCAST_LISTENER_ANNOUNCEMENT ||orig->mcast_flags & BATADV_UNINIT_FLAGS))atomic_inc(&bat_priv->mcast.num_no_mla);- else if (mcast_flags & BATADV_MCAST_LISTENER_ANNOUNCEMENT &&
!(orig->mcast_flags & BATADV_MCAST_LISTENER_ANNOUNCEMENT))atomic_dec(&bat_priv->mcast.num_no_mla);
- batadv_mcast_tvlv_update_flag_counter(
BATADV_MCAST_LISTENER_ANNOUNCEMENT,&bat_priv->mcast.num_no_mla,mcast_flags, orig->mcast_flags);- batadv_mcast_tvlv_update_flag_counter(
BATADV_MCAST_HAS_NO_BRIDGE,&bat_priv->mcast.num_has_bridge,mcast_flags, orig->mcast_flags);
You should find a shorter name, the alignment looks really ugly. :)
Cheers, Simon