On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:11:18PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 12:02 +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> [...]
> > +/* check if device MTU is sufficient for tipc headers */
> > +static inline bool tipc_check_mtu(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int
> > reserve)
> > +{
> > + if (dev->mtu >= TIPC_MIN_BEARER_MTU + reserve)
> > + return false;
> > + netdev_warn(dev, "MTU too low for tipc bearer\n");
> > + return true;
> > +}
> [...]
>
> The comment says "check if ... sufficient" but the return value
> indicates the opposite. Could you make these consistent?
Good point. I suppose renaming the function to e.g. tipc_mtu_bad() (and
rewording the commment accordingly) would also make the code more
readable without looking at the definition.
I'll wait for other comments and send v3 tomorrow.
> Other than that, this looks OK to me. I haven't tested any version as
> I don't know how to use TIPC.
I checked that the patch doesn't allow enabling a bearer on top of
device with insufficient MTU and it does for sufficient (100/128), both
in eth and udp case. I also checked that lowering MTU under 100 in eth
case disables attached bearer. I didn't run any deeper test like sending
an actual traffic but the patch shouldn't affect that.
Michal Kubecek
