Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:11:25 +0000 From: "hrs (Hiroki Sato)" <phabric-noreply@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: [Differential] [Commented On] D1986: Teach lagg(4) to change MTU Message-ID: <c742e7094093715d3cd0e9a1adf7751e@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-i34kfg4qpajia7fo5u5l-req@FreeBSD.org> References: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-i34kfg4qpajia7fo5u5l-req@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hrs added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS sys/net/if_lagg.c:753 Please separate a llq loop from a handler for per-port configuration. A llq traversal should be required only once in lagg_port_ops() if the handlers process a single lagg_llq entry. sys/net/if_lagg.c:837 Is this (llq == NULL), not (llq != NULL)? sys/net/if_lagg.c:840 Why is cleanup required here? This removes all of tasks not limited to MTU change. sys/net/if_lagg.c:861 free(NULL) does nothing. Checking if NULL or not is useless. sys/net/if_lagg.c:872 This traversal and freeing an entry after processing it should be done in lagg_port_ops(). sys/net/if_lagg.h:220 Please add "llq_" prefix to the members. sys/net/if_lagg.h:221 Is there any reason to have ifr as a pointer? malloc is generally expensive in kernel, and overhead of struct ifreq is acceptable for me even if every llq has one. I feel this complicates the error handling at least. REPOSITORY rS FreeBSD src repository REVISION DETAIL https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1986 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: rpokala, rstone, rpokala-panasas.com Cc: smh, imp, melifaro, hrs, sbruno, lakshmi.n_msystechnologies.com, emaste, ae, freebsd-net-list
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c742e7094093715d3cd0e9a1adf7751e>