Re: [patch net-next-2.6 3/4] bond: implement slave management operations

[Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>]

Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 02:16:18PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com wrote:
>Le 11/02/2011 16:22, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko<jpirko@redhat.com>
>>---
>>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c |   38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>index 1df9f0e..f8e59f9 100644
>>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>@@ -4285,6 +4285,40 @@ unwind:
>>  	return res;
>>  }
>>
>>+static int bond_add_slave(struct net_device *bond_dev,
>>+			  struct net_device *slave_dev)
>>+{
>>+	return bond_enslave(bond_dev, slave_dev);
>>+}
>>+
>>+static int bond_del_slave(struct net_device *bond_dev,
>>+			  struct net_device *slave_dev)
>>+{
>>+	return bond_release(bond_dev, slave_dev);
>>+}
>>+
>
>Hi Jiri,
>
>Why did you add another level of function nesting (bond_add_slave()
>and bond_del_slave()) instead of using bond_enslave() and
>bond_release() directly in the structure below ?
>
>The function prototypes are identical.
>
>Or may be, rename bond_enslave() to bond_add_slave() and
>bond_release() to bond_del_slave(), for consistency.

Yes you are right - I did it in bonding by copy & paste code I did in
bridge and I didn't see that here it isn't necessary... Will remake this
in respin patchset.

Thanks.

Jirka
>
>>+	.ndo_add_slave		= bond_add_slave,
>>+	.ndo_del_slave		= bond_del_slave,
>>+	.ndo_get_slave_count	= bond_get_slave_count,
>>+	.ndo_get_slave		= bond_get_slave,
>
>	Nicolas.