On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:51:59 +0200 (CEST)
shenry82 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I saw some big mistakes, here's the correct version :
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> void br_send_config_bpdu(struct net_bridge_port *p, struct bpdu *bpdu)
> {
> unsigned char buf[42];
>
> buf[0] = bpdu->bpdu_header.protocol[0]; //0x00
> buf[1] = bpdu->bpdu_header.protocol[1]; //0x00
> buf[2] = bpdu->bpdu_header.version; //0x02
> buf[3] = BPDU_TYPE_CONFIG;
> buf[4] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.topo_change;
> buf[5] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.proposal;
> buf[6] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.port_role[0];
> buf[7] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.port_role[1];
> buf[8] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.learning;
> buf[9] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.forwarding;
> buf[10] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.agreement;
> buf[11] = bpdu->bpdu_body.flags.topo_change_ack;
> buf[12] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.prio[0];
> buf[13] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.prio[1];
> buf[14] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.addr[0];
> buf[15] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.addr[1];
> buf[16] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.addr[2];
> buf[17] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.addr[3];
> buf[18] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.addr[4];
> buf[19] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_id.addr[5];
> buf[20] = (bpdu->bpdu_body.root_path_cost >> 24) & 0xFF;
> buf[21] = (bpdu->bpdu_body.root_path_cost >> 16) & 0xFF;
> buf[22] = (bpdu->bpdu_body.root_path_cost >> 8) & 0xFF;
> buf[23] = bpdu->bpdu_body.root_path_cost & 0xFF;
> buf[24] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.prio[0];
> buf[25] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.prio[1];
> buf[26] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.addr[0];
> buf[27] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.addr[1];
> buf[28] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.addr[2];
> buf[29] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.addr[3];
> buf[30] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.addr[4];
> buf[31] = bpdu->bpdu_body.bridge_id.addr[5];
> buf[32] = (bpdu->bpdu_body.port_id >> 8) & 0xFF;
> buf[33] = bpdu->bpdu_body.port_id & 0xFF;
>
> br_set_ticks(buf+34, bpdu->bpdu_body.message_age);
> br_set_ticks(buf+36, bpdu->bpdu_body.max_age);
> br_set_ticks(buf+38, bpdu->bpdu_body.hello_time);
> br_set_ticks(buf+40, bpdu->bpdu_body.forward_delay);
>
> br_send_bpdu(p, buf, 42);
> }
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I also modified the following function like this :
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /* called under bridge lock */
> void br_send_tcn_bpdu(struct net_bridge_port *p)
> {
> unsigned char buf[4];
>
> buf[0] = bpdu->bpdu_header.protocol[0]; //0x00
> buf[1] = bpdu->bpdu_header.protocol[1]; //0x00
> buf[2] = bpdu->bpdu_header.version; //0x02
> buf[3] = BPDU_TYPE_TCN;
> br_send_bpdu(p, buf, 4);
> }
>
> static unsigned char header[3] = {0x00, 0x00, 0x02};
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> please tell me what do you think of because if i'm getting the wrong way, i
> prefer to know it quickly. ^^
>
This matches the style of the existing code, but I really don't like that style.
I would prefer to rework that code to define the STP protocol header as a
structure
and overlay structure on an skb. More like the existing IP code does.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
