[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2G7YJqzwrLDnDDO3ZUtNvyBSyun=6NjY3M2KS0Wr1ubg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 12:24:07 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
Samuel Zou <zou_wei@...wei.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] ethernet: ti: am65-cpts: Use generic helper function
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:41 AM Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu Jul 30 2020, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> > On 30/07/2020 11:00, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> >> + msgtype = ptp_get_msgtype(hdr, ptp_class);
> >> + seqid = be16_to_cpu(hdr->sequence_id);
> >
> > Is there any reason to not use "ntohs()"?
>
> This is just my personal preference, because I think it's more
> readable. Internally ntohs() uses be16_to_cpu(). There's no technical
> reason for it.
I think for traditional reasons, code in net/* tends to use ntohs()
while code in drivers/* tends to use be16_to_cpu().
In drivers/net/* the two are used roughly the same, though I guess
one could make the argument that be16_to_cpu() would be
more appropriate for data structures exchanged with hardware
while ntohs() makes sense on data structures sent over the
network.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists