From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: [PATCH]ipv6:use ipv6_addr_type instead of __ipv6_addr_type Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 16:13:33 +0800 Message-ID: <4A03E9AD.3080105@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4A02921A.1090200@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090507.145931.179746218.davem@davemloft.net> <4A038853.4020205@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090508.004420.22402966.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:52834 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754501AbZEHIMd (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 04:12:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090508.004420.22402966.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Yang Hongyang > Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 09:18:11 +0800 > >> David Miller wrote: >>> From: Yang Hongyang >>> Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 15:47:38 +0800 >>> >>>> Although the function of these two functions are the same,we should use the >>>> encapsulation function of __ipv6_addr_type >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Hongyang >>> Are you sure? ipv6_addr_type() masks out the upper 16-bits >>> of __ipv6_addr_type()'s return value, which is the scope. >>> >>> I'm not convinced that is what we want to do here. >> My advice here is that the function which has __ maybe shouldn't be directly used. > > You're using vague terms like "advice" and "maybe" and this > only decreases my confidence in your change. Yes,I said maybe because I judge this change by search the code.There are many places that use ipv6_addr_type() but only three places out of ipv6.h use __ipv6_addr_type().Now, there are two methods can to do the right things, one is ipv6_addr_type(),another is __ipv6_addr_type().There's no doult that These three places can be converted to use ipv6_addr_type().I said converted because it's not just change __ipv6_addr_type() to ipv6_addr_type(). Of course you can say that this dose not imply that we *should* do this change. I agree,so I just said this is a advice:) > > You're also not addressing my questions at all. > > Two "_" characters at the beginning of the function's name says > nothing about whether these call sites want the scope bits present in > the return value they receive. I used to think Two "_" means the funtion shouldn't(or should better not) be called outside of the file.You teach me,thank you! > > This seems like a completely pointless and mindless change, > and in fact might introduce bugs. If you think this is a pointless change,you can just ingore it, So sorry for the inconvenience:(But I don't think it's mindless,Because before you teach me, I really misunderstand Two "_" means . > > There is no way I'm applying this. You can't even explain if the > patch is correct or not. In fact, I doubt you even know. > Yes,this single patch is not correct.As I said,this patch should together with another patch to covert use of __ipv6_addr_src_scope to ipv6_addr_src_scope. -- Regards Yang Hongyang