netdev - Re: [patch] bonding: comparing a u8 with -1 is always false

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111104205351.GQ4682@mwanda>
Date:	Fri, 4 Nov 2011 23:53:51 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Weiping Pan <wpan@...hat.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] bonding: comparing a u8 with -1 is always false

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 01:02:01PM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> 
> 	Since you #define SPEED_UNKNOWN to -1 (below), how does this
> actually change anything?  Did you mean 0xffff (because struct
> ethtool_cmd's speed is a u16)?
> 

Sorry I could have explained this better in the changelog.  The
slave->speed is stored in a u32 and the -1 works fine as is.
Obviously, as you point out the define doesn't change anything.  I
just changed it so it would look symetric with DUPLEX_UNKNOWN.

But I think you missed that I defined #define DUPLEX_UNKNOWN 0xff.
Before it we used a -1 for both and that didn't work.

I can resend this with a note about the SPEED_UNKNOWN cleanup if
you'd like.  I'll do that tomorrow or Sunday.

regards,
dan carpenter

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)