Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next 1/7] bonding: use ether_addr_equal_unaligned for bond addr compare

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1657 bytes --]

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ding Tianhong wrote:

> On 2014/1/2 18:26, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> > On 2014/1/2 17:14, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2014/1/2 16:38, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2014, Ding Tianhong wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2014/1/2 15:39, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >>>>>> Are the casts needed
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, otherwise the warming will report:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /net-next/drivers/net/bonding/bond_3ad.c:427: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘ether_addr_equal_64bits’ from incompatible pointer type
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it necessary for this driver to use a different type from everyone 
> >>>> else?
> >>>>
> >>>> julia
> >>>>
> >>> Did you mean the MAC_ADDRESS_EQUAL is excess?
> >>> I did not remove it because the codes no need to be changed more and it looks that didn't take any negative effect.
> >>
> >> No, I was wondering about the mac_addr type, defined in bond_3ad.h.  Other 
> >> code just has the array inlined into the containing structure.
> >>
> >> julia
> >>
> 
> I reviewed the struct mac_addr again, and feel that even it looks not comfortable, but
> make the lacp struct more meaning for 3ad, what do you think about it, I think no need
> to revert them to u8.

Personally, when I see things that are different, I start wondering about 
why.  So if there is no reason for it to be different, I would prefer that 
it is the same.

Certainly, a mac_addr type is more meaningful than just an array with size 
ETH_ALEN, or worse an array with size 6.  But I am not sure that it is 
practical to introduce that type everywhere.

In any case, it is not a big issue.

julia