[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150412.212554.737999932991161774.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 21:25:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: cwang@...pensource.com
Cc: tom@...bertland.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v2 0/5] fou: some fixes and updates
From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:50:55 -0700
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Patch 1~3 fix some minor bugs in net/ipv4/fou.c, the only
>>> thing I am not sure is if it's too late to change the
>>> byte order of FOU_ATTR_PORT, if so we have to fix iproute2
>>> instead of kernel.
>>>
>> Is this a relic from previous patch set, or is there a reason you want
>> to make this hbo?
>
> I was referring to this change:
>
> - u16 port = nla_get_u16(info->attrs[FOU_ATTR_PORT]);
> + __be16 port = nla_get_be16(info->attrs[FOU_ATTR_PORT]);
>
> I meant I am not sure if this breaks ABI here even in v2, we
> just use the raw value passed from user-space, so probably
> we are safe.
This is fine, there is no byte swapping done by nla_get_be16() so the
bits used are exactly the same.
--
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