On Thursday, 21 November 2024 10:23:33 CET Sven Eckelmann wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2024 10:13:15 CET Remi Pommarel wrote:
Looks right to me, I would even simplify that more for readability with:
[...]
-del:
list_del(&entry->list);kmem_cache_free(batadv_tt_change_cache, entry);bat_priv->tt.local_changes--;discard: kmem_cache_free(batadv_tt_change_cache, tt_change_node); goto unlock;
The "discard" is unused. But the rest looks good.
No, it doesn't. You've accidental removed "entry->change.flags = flags;". So it should look more like this:
--- a/net/batman-adv/translation-table.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/translation-table.c @@ -484,34 +484,25 @@ static void batadv_tt_local_event(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (!batadv_compare_eth(entry->change.addr, common->addr)) continue;
- /* DEL+ADD in the same orig interval have no effect and can be - * removed to avoid silly behaviour on the receiver side. The - * other way around (ADD+DEL) can happen in case of roaming of - * a client still in the NEW state. Roaming of NEW clients is - * now possible due to automatically recognition of "temporary" - * clients - */ - del_op_entry = entry->change.flags & BATADV_TT_CLIENT_DEL; - if (!del_op_requested && del_op_entry) - goto del; - if (del_op_requested && !del_op_entry) - goto del; - - /* this is a second add or del in the same originator interval. - * It could mean that flags have been changed (e.g. double - * add): update them - */ - if (del_op_requested == del_op_entry) { + if (del_op_requested != del_op_entry) { + /* DEL+ADD in the same orig interval have no effect and + * can be removed to avoid silly behaviour on the + * receiver side. The other way around (ADD+DEL) can + * happen in case of roaming of a client still in the + * NEW state. Roaming of NEW clients is now possible due + * to automatically recognition of "temporary" clients + */ + list_del(&entry->list); + kmem_cache_free(batadv_tt_change_cache, entry); + bat_priv->tt.local_changes--; + } else { + /* this is a second add or del in the same originator + * interval. It could mean that flags have been changed + * (e.g. double add): update them + */ entry->change.flags = flags; - goto discard; }
- continue; -del: - list_del(&entry->list); - kmem_cache_free(batadv_tt_change_cache, entry); - bat_priv->tt.local_changes--; -discard: kmem_cache_free(batadv_tt_change_cache, tt_change_node); goto unlock; }
Kind regards, Sven