Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:28:03 -0800 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Luiz Otavio O Souza <loos@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r312770 - in head/sys: net netinet netinet6 Message-ID: <20170127202803.GU2611@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20170127171655.V2822@besplex.bde.org> References: <201701251904.v0PJ48YF061428@repo.freebsd.org> <20170125222006.GH2611@FreeBSD.org> <20170125222632.GQ2349@kib.kiev.ua> <20170126133341.V1087@besplex.bde.org> <20170126215927.GL2611@FreeBSD.org> <20170127171655.V2822@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:34:45PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
B> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 02:03:05PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
B> > B> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
B> > B>
B> > B> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:20:06PM -0800, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
B> > B> >> Thanks, Luiz!
B> > B> >>
B> > B> >> One stylistic nit that I missed in review:
B> > B> >>
B> > B> >> L> static int
B> > B> >> L> -in_difaddr_ioctl(caddr_t data, struct ifnet *ifp, struct thread *td)
B> > B> >> L> +in_difaddr_ioctl(u_long cmd, caddr_t data, struct ifnet *ifp, struct thread *td)
B> > B> >> L> {
B> > B> >> L> const struct ifreq *ifr = (struct ifreq *)data;
B> > B> >> L> const struct sockaddr_in *addr = (const struct sockaddr_in *)
B> > B> >> L> @@ -618,7 +618,8 @@ in_difaddr_ioctl(caddr_t data, struct if
B> > B> >> L> in_ifadown(&ia->ia_ifa, 1);
B> > B> >> L>
B> > B> >> L> if (ia->ia_ifa.ifa_carp)
B> > B> >> L> - (*carp_detach_p)(&ia->ia_ifa);
B> > B> >> L> + (*carp_detach_p)(&ia->ia_ifa,
B> > B> >> L> + (cmd == SIOCDIFADDR) ? false : true);
B> > B> >>
B> > B> >> Can we change the very last line to:
B> > B> >>
B> > B> >> (cmd == SIOCAIFADDR) ? true : false);
B> > B>
B> > B> That is not stylistic, but invert the result. Perhaps you meant to
B> > B> reverse the test to avoid negative logic for the result.
B> >
B> > It uses different ioctl value, so it doesn't invert result. Instead
B> > of !SIOCDIFADDR I want more explicit SIOCAIFADDR.
B>
B> Oops. So it is non-stylistic in a different way. cmd can only be
B> SIOCDIFADDR, or one or both of SIOCAIFADDR. Than is unclear. Assuming
B> that the original code is correct and that all 3 cases can occur,
B> inversion would break all 3 cases, while the non-stylistic change breaks
B> only the O_SIOCAIFADDR case.
B>
B> Since there can be more than 2 cases and it isn't clear that there are
B> at most 3, any boolean test on 1 of the cases is going to be unclear.
B> Positive logic will be clearer, but that requires comparison with 2
B> cases. The current code use negative logic to select these 2 cases as
B> the complement of the other case.
O_SIOCAIFADDR should just be deleted. My suggestion is not only convert
to positive logic, but also outline that SIOCAIFADDR is an exceptional
case, in all other cases in_difaddr_ioctl() which is named "delete ifaddr"
should do delete everything.
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170127202803.GU2611>