From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Edward Cree Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sfc: Use ether_addr_copy and eth_broadcast_addr Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:48:05 +0000 Message-ID: <53170EF5.1030809@solarflare.com> References: <20140304.153653.263004778768283059.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:39334 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755203AbaCELsK (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 06:48:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140304.153653.263004778768283059.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/03/14 20:36, David Miller wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c >> index 3b39798..de0c815 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c >> @@ -162,8 +162,8 @@ static int efx_ef10_get_mac_address(struct efx_nic *efx, u8 *mac_address) >> if (outlen < MC_CMD_GET_MAC_ADDRESSES_OUT_LEN) >> return -EIO; >> >> - memcpy(mac_address, >> - MCDI_PTR(outbuf, GET_MAC_ADDRESSES_OUT_MAC_ADDR_BASE), ETH_ALEN); >> + ether_addr_copy(mac_address, >> + MCDI_PTR(outbuf, GET_MAC_ADDRESSES_OUT_MAC_ADDR_BASE)); > This is not indented correctly, the original code was. Oops, yes. After fixing that, checkpatch also complains about a couple of long lines (mcdi.c:1207-8). Am I right in thinking that it's being overzealous and is best ignored in this case? Alternatively I suppose the expression starting 'port_num ? ' could go in a local variable; would that be clearer?