From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:38:27 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Message-ID: <20140424113827.6d27ec5b@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
In-Reply-To: <1398341787.4171.16.camel@ubuntu-vm-makita>
References: <CAG-2HqVnWXu2dW=Su6DDxDzgg3cLSvTMu5Sf=Eq+YUv4P1d4NQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAG-2HqU2f+4i3ttLSeitwr15=cVyin9VT+UrQvKC9pMV04fW7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1398341177.4171.11.camel@ubuntu-vm-makita>
	<1398341787.4171.16.camel@ubuntu-vm-makita>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net] bridge: Handle IFLA_ADDRESS correctly when
 creating bridge device
List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging <bridge.lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bridge>, 
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bridge/>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge>,
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bridge <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, "C. R. Oldham" <cr@saltstack.com>

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:16:27 +0900
Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

> +static int br_dev_newlink(struct net *src_net, struct net_device *dev,
> +			  struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[])
> +{
> +	int err;
> +	struct net_bridge *br = netdev_priv(dev);
> +
> +	if (tb[IFLA_ADDRESS]) {
> +		spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
> +		br_stp_change_bridge_id(br, nla_data(tb[IFLA_ADDRESS]));
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);
> +	}
> +
> +	err = register_netdevice(dev);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

Looks good.

Why not just do simpler tail call??
    return register_netdevice(dev);