On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 08:55 +0800, yuan linyu wrote:
> From: yuan linyu <linyu.y...@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ndisc.c b/net/ipv6/ndisc.c
[]
> @@ -512,7 +519,8 @@ void ndisc_send_na(struct net_device *dev, const struct
> in6_addr *daddr,
> in6_ifa_put(ifp);
> } else {
> if (ipv6_dev_get_saddr(dev_net(dev), dev, daddr,
> -
> inet6_sk(dev_net(dev)->ipv6.ndisc_sk)->srcprefs,
> + inet6_sk(dev_net(dev)->ipv6.ndisc_sk)->
> + srcprefs,
This is not a good change as it puts a single dereference
on multiple lines.
> @@ -896,20 +910,19 @@ static void ndisc_recv_ns(struct sk_buff *skb)
> else
> NEIGH_CACHE_STAT_INC(&nd_tbl, rcv_probes_ucast);
>
> - /*
> - * update / create cache entry
> + /* update / create cache entry
> * for the source address
Some of these comments could be single line
> @@ -1003,30 +1016,31 @@ static void ndisc_recv_na(struct sk_buff *skb)
[]
> ndisc_update(dev, neigh, lladdr,
> - msg->icmph.icmp6_solicited ? NUD_REACHABLE :
> NUD_STALE,
> - NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE|
> - (msg->icmph.icmp6_override ?
> NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE : 0)|
> - NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE_ISROUTER|
> - (msg->icmph.icmp6_router ? NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ISROUTER
> : 0),
> + msg->icmph.icmp6_solicited ?
> + NUD_REACHABLE : NUD_STALE,
> + NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE |
> + (msg->icmph.icmp6_override ?
> + NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE : 0) |
> + NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE_ISROUTER |
> + (msg->icmph.icmp6_router ?
> + NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ISROUTER : 0),
> NDISC_NEIGHBOUR_ADVERTISEMENT, &ndopts);
This is much more difficult to read now and could
be slightly improved by a temporary for msg->icmph,
removing unnecessary parentheses or using multiple
line tests for the flags argument of ndisc_update
instead of the slightly difficult to read uses of
multiple ternaries with bitwise ORs.
Something like:
struct icmp6hdr *icmph = &msg->icmph;
u32 flags;
[...]
flags = NEIGH_UPDATE_F_WEAK_OVERRIDE |
NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE_ISROUTER;
if (icmph->icmp6_override)
flags |= NEIGH_UPDATE_F_OVERRIDE;
if (icmph->icmp6_router)
flags |= NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ISROUTER;
ndisc_update(dev, neigh, lladdr,
icmph->icmp6_solicited ? NUD_REACHABLE : NUD_STALE,
flags, NDISC_NEIGHBOUR_ADVERTISEMENT, &ndopts);
But really, why bother?
Just because checkpatch bleats some message doesn't
mean it _has_ to be fixed.
Please strive to make the code more readable and
intelligible for _humans_. Compilers don't care.
