netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] ethernet: ti: am65-cpts: Use generic helper function

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: <f30d3a4f-6cf3-1d46-397e-baa27b3c8ade@ti.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 15:55:39 +0300
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:     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 31/07/2020 14:48, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> On Thu Jul 30 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I see, makes sense. I could simply keep it the way it was, or?

  I prefer ntohs() as this packet data.

-- 
Best regards,
grygorii