> It has occurred to me that dev_set_promiscuity() and its brethren
> dev_set_allmulti() may not be the best of interfaces:
>
> - On cursory inspection of code using these function their name
> implies the value of the relevant counter is set to the value passed
> as parameter, not incremented by it.
> - No caller I've managed to spot passes anything but -1 or 1
>
> It seems an interface of
>
> int dev_set_promiscuity(struct net_device *dev, bool on);
>
> int dev_set_allmulti(struct net_device *dev, bool on);
on suggests it is an absolute, when in fact you are passing an
increment, so i don't think it is much of an improvement.
Adding #define, PROMISC_INC and PROMISC_DEC might be clearer, and
since this is not a fast path, you could consider parameter
validation. Or dev_get_promiscuity(), det_put_promiscuity().
> would be as functional (for current users), more readable and less
> error prone but I am not sure such a tiny problem (if you can call
> this a problem) is worth the churn...
There was only one instance of it wrong, so it is not a very big
problem. I would say it is not worth the churn.
Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
