Re: [Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: netfilter: spanning tree: Add masked_ether_addr_equal and neatening

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51:28AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 19:36 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:58:45PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > There is code duplication of a masked ethernet address comparison here
> > > > so make it a separate function instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Miscellanea:
> > > > 
> > > > o Neaten alignment of FWINV macro uses to make it clearer for the reader
> > > Applied, thanks.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > This masked_ether_addr_equal function could go into etherdevice.h,
> > > > but I don't see another use like it in kernel code.  Is there one?
> > >
> > > This is specific of iptables, not even nftables would use this. So I
> > > would keep this in the iptables tree.
> > 
> > Did you see the other patch that adds a generic
> > ether_addr_equal_masked() and uses it in a few
> > more files?
> 
> You mean this one:
> 
>         http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/636208/
> 
> OK, so I'll toss the previous and will take this one instead.
> 
> As I said my opinion is that ether_addr_equal_masked() is only
> required by netfilter, but thinking it well I don't really mind in
> what header this function is placed given that these are our internal
> headers.

git am reports patch I get from patchwork is corrupt at line 37.
Tried a couple of tricks to fix it but this didn't work.

Would you mind resubmitting this patch?

Sorry for the inconvenience.