[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401021011400.2182@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 10:14:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 1/7] bonding: use ether_addr_equal_unaligned
for bond addr compare
On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> On 2014/1/2 16:38, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014/1/2 15:39, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>> Are the casts needed
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, otherwise the warming will report:
> >>
> >> /net-next/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c:427: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘ether_addr_equal_64bits’ from incompatible pointer type
> >
> > Is it necessary for this driver to use a different type from everyone
> > else?
> >
> > julia
> >
> Did you mean the MAC_ADDRESS_EQUAL is excess?
> I did not remove it because the codes no need to be changed more and it looks that didn't take any negative effect.
No, I was wondering about the mac_addr type, defined in bond_3ad.h. Other
code just has the array inlined into the containing structure.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists