[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090508.004835.216058418.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 00:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: yanghy@...fujitsu.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]ipv6:use ipv6_addr_type instead of __ipv6_addr_type
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 00:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 09:18:11 +0800
>
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 15:47:38 +0800
>>>
>>>> Although the function of these two functions are the same,we should use the
>>>> encapsulation function of __ipv6_addr_type
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang<yanghy@...fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>> Are you sure? ipv6_addr_type() masks out the upper 16-bits
>>> of __ipv6_addr_type()'s return value, which is the scope.
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced that is what we want to do here.
>>
>> My advice here is that the function which has __ maybe shouldn't be directly used.
I also want to address this statement on it's own, it's simply
not true.
"__" means "think carefully before using this function", or "this
function requires a special environment for proper usage"
It DOES NOT mean "do not use directly." It's never meant this.
So ever basis for your patch is fundamentally flawed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists