[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52C53EC6.30902@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 18:26:14 +0800
From: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
CC: 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 2014/1/2 17:14, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 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
>
Oh, sorry for mismatch.:)
The code for bond_3ad mode is too old and the use for mac addr is not so comfortable.
I think I need to send a patch to fix the unusual mac addr and make it more reasonable.
Thanks for your opinion.
Regards
Ding
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists