| Message ID | 20241016035848.292603-1-mohan.prasad@microchip.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Michal Kubecek |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [ethtool] netlink: settings: Fix for wrong auto-negotiation state | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:28:47AM +0530, Mohan Prasad J wrote: > Auto-negotiation state in json format showed the > opposite state due to wrong comparison. > Fix for returning the correct auto-neg state implemented. > > Signed-off-by: Mohan Prasad J <mohan.prasad@microchip.com> > --- > netlink/settings.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/netlink/settings.c b/netlink/settings.c > index dbfb520..a454bfb 100644 > --- a/netlink/settings.c > +++ b/netlink/settings.c > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int linkmodes_reply_cb(const struct nlmsghdr *nlhdr, void *data) > (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? "off" : "on"); > else > print_bool(PRINT_JSON, "auto-negotiation", NULL, > - autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE); > + (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false : true); > } > if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_CFG]) { > uint8_t val; The fix looks correct but isn't (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false : true just a more complicated way to say autoneg != AUTONEG_DISABLE (and harder to read)? Michal
Hello Michal, Thank you for the comments. > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 09:28:47AM +0530, Mohan Prasad J wrote: > > Auto-negotiation state in json format showed the opposite state due to > > wrong comparison. > > Fix for returning the correct auto-neg state implemented. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mohan Prasad J <mohan.prasad@microchip.com> > > --- > > netlink/settings.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/netlink/settings.c b/netlink/settings.c index > > dbfb520..a454bfb 100644 > > --- a/netlink/settings.c > > +++ b/netlink/settings.c > > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int linkmodes_reply_cb(const struct nlmsghdr > *nlhdr, void *data) > > (autoneg == > AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? "off" : "on"); > > else > > print_bool(PRINT_JSON, "auto-negotiation", NULL, > > - autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE); > > + (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false : > true); > > } > > if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_CFG]) { > > uint8_t val; > > The fix looks correct but isn't > > (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false : true > > just a more complicated way to say > > autoneg != AUTONEG_DISABLE > > (and harder to read)? You are right. (autoneg != AUTONEG_DISABLE) would be more simpler and easy to read. I will update it in the next version. Thanks, Mohan Prasad J
diff --git a/netlink/settings.c b/netlink/settings.c index dbfb520..a454bfb 100644 --- a/netlink/settings.c +++ b/netlink/settings.c @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int linkmodes_reply_cb(const struct nlmsghdr *nlhdr, void *data) (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? "off" : "on"); else print_bool(PRINT_JSON, "auto-negotiation", NULL, - autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE); + (autoneg == AUTONEG_DISABLE) ? false : true); } if (tb[ETHTOOL_A_LINKMODES_MASTER_SLAVE_CFG]) { uint8_t val;
Auto-negotiation state in json format showed the opposite state due to wrong comparison. Fix for returning the correct auto-neg state implemented. Signed-off-by: Mohan Prasad J <mohan.prasad@microchip.com> --- netlink/settings.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)