[PATCH stable] Separate multicast configuration for mesh and wlan interfaces.

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:59:26 +0100
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:30 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:19 -0400
> > > Andres Salomon <dilinger at queued.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:39 +0100
> > > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 15:38 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And even without that, it doesn't seem to do the right thing. Set
> > > > > > IFF_PROMISC mode on one interface, then on the other, then clear it
> > > > > > on the first.... it should remain set in hardware. And AFAICT it
> > > > > > doesn't.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll see if I can make it work....
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hm, a single cup of tea mostly achieves that; sorry :)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was missing the fact that priv->packetfilter[] is now an array.
> > > > > It got a bit clearer after I reformatted it to stop trying to fit in
> > > > > 80 columns. Sometimes the code just doesn't fit; it's painful to try
> > > > > to make it.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Gosh, I sure wish you, Andrew, checkpatch.pl, and Ingo[0] were all on the same page
> > > > regarding that.. it would sure make my life easier.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > David is off in his own little world on this and can be safely ignored.
> > > 
> > > Meanwhile the rest of us are forced to stare at crocks of shit like
> > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/x.jpg, wondering who hates us and why.
> > 
> > I think the large amount of whitespace in the screenshot at
> > http://david.woodhou.se/narrow.png shows quite effectively why I think
> > you're talking nonsense on this particular topic.
> 
> That's an 80-column display.

Seems to be something like an 80-row display too. Even if you have one
of those weird rotatable monitors and you've put it into portrait mode,
it's not particularly realistic.

Mine, on the other hand, is less contrived -- it's a web browser which
is no wider than it _has_ to be these days, to view news.bbc.co.uk.

And the code in question is not the example you chose, which I would
accept patches for, but lbs_set_if_multicast_list() -- shown at
http://david.woodhou.se/then-and-now.html in both the original 80-column
and the more readable slightly wider versions.

> If that's the best your can do, you have nothing.

In the past, after fixing the 80-column nonsense to make code more
readable, I've immediately spotted bugs which weren't apparent before
(commit f6f0f818, for example).

I do try to keep code within 80 columns where I can; it's a reasonable
guideline -- but I also accept that sometimes it just doesn't fit, and
it would be foolish and counter-productive to try to force it.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but making code more readable helps me
find real bugs, and that is more important to me than the 80-column
rule.

-- 
dwmw2