On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:15:27 -0700 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcg...@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> --- a/net/bridge/br_private.h > +++ b/net/bridge/br_private.h > @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ struct net_bridge_port > u8 priority; > u8 state; > u16 port_no; > + bool root_block_enabled; > unsigned char topology_change_ack; It seems a bit confusing to have both a ROOT_BLOCK flag in the data structure and and additional root_block_enabled flag. If nothing else it is a waste of space. Looks like you are changing the meaning slightly. is possible to have BR_ROOT_BLOCK set but !root_block_enabled? and what about the inverse? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
