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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists