On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 04:29:47PM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >> Please avoid white-space changes only, or if you are going to target
> >> net-next, move them to a pre-req patch.
> >
> > OK, what's pre-req patch?
>
> I mean: a separate patch, earlier in the series, to keep cosmetic and
> functional changes separated and more easily reviewable.
Sure
> >>> + if (actor_synced) {
> >>> + port->sm_vars &= ~AD_PORT_ACTOR_CHURN;
> >>> port->sm_churn_actor_state = AD_NO_CHURN;
> >>> - } else {
> >>> - port->churn_actor_count++;
> >>> - port->sm_churn_actor_state = AD_CHURN;
> >>> + actor_churned = false;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> I think this part is not described by the state diagram above?!?
> >
> > This part is about path (3), port in monitor or churn, and actor is in sync.
> > Then move to state no_churn.
> >
> > Do you mean port->sm_vars &= ~AD_PORT_ACTOR_CHURN is not described?
> > Hmm, maybe we don't need this after re-organise.
>
> I mean the state change in the else part, I can't map them in the state
> machine diagram.
The "else" line is removed
Thanks
Hangbin
