netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IFA_MAX sets wrong in rtnetlink.h

To: davem@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IFA_MAX sets wrong in rtnetlink.h
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:48:02 +0900 (JST)
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040526135610.2ecaa96a.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <200405261319.55787.mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx> <200405261350.39088.mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040526135610.2ecaa96a.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <20040526135610.2ecaa96a.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 26 May 2004 
13:56:10 -0700), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:

> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:50:39 -0700
> Shirley Ma <mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > A tiny patch here for 2.6.6 kernel.
> 
> Good catch, patch applied.

BTW, how do you think of the code below to minimize diffs and risk of error
when we add new item for enum?

enum {
     :
     IFA_MULTICAST,
     __IFA_MAX
};

#define IFA_MAX (__IFA_MAX - 1)

-----
enum {
     :
     IFA_CACHEINFO
};

#define IFA_MAX IFA_CACHEINFO

enum {
     :
     IFA_CACHEINFO,  /* changed to add "," */
     IFA_MULTICAST   /* added */
};

#define IFA_MAX IFA_MULTICAST /* changed */

--- vs ---

enum {
     :
     IFA_CACHEINFO,
     __IFA_MAX
};

#define IFA_MAX (__IFA_MAX - 1)

enum {
     :
     IFA_CACHEINFO,
     IFA_MULTICAST,   /* added */
     __IFA_MAX
};

#define IFA_MAX (__IFA_MAX - 1)

--yoshfuji

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>