In the actual implementation ether_addr_equal function tests for equality to 0
when returning. It seems in commit 0d74c4 it is somehow overlooked to change
this operator to reflect the actual function.
Signed-off-by: Cihangir Akturk <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
index a445da0..3f76c0c 100644
--- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
+++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt
@@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ bool ether_addr_equal(const u8 *addr1, const u8 *addr2)
#else
const u16 *a = (const u16 *)addr1;
const u16 *b = (const u16 *)addr2;
- return ((a[0] ^ b[0]) | (a[1] ^ b[1]) | (a[2] ^ b[2])) != 0;
+ return ((a[0] ^ b[0]) | (a[1] ^ b[1]) | (a[2] ^ b[2])) == 0;
#endif
}
--
2.1.4
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:53:40 +0200
Cihangir Akturk <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the actual implementation ether_addr_equal function tests for equality to 0
> when returning. It seems in commit 0d74c4 it is somehow overlooked to change
> this operator to reflect the actual function.
I received this patch two days ago; has something changed that you're
sending it again?
Meanwhile, there was a question from Ozgur Karatas on the patch, but I've
not yet seen your response.
Thanks,
jon
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 04:13:13PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:53:40 +0200
> Cihangir Akturk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In the actual implementation ether_addr_equal function tests for equality to 0
> > when returning. It seems in commit 0d74c4 it is somehow overlooked to change
> > this operator to reflect the actual function.
I realized that I generated the patch with the -k flag to git
format-patch. And think that it'd be better to resend it without this
flag. Besides that nothing is changed in the patch itself. Sorry for
the noise.
>
> I received this patch two days ago; has something changed that you're
> sending it again?
>
> Meanwhile, there was a question from Ozgur Karatas on the patch, but I've
> not yet seen your response.
Ok, I'll try to answer his question.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
Cihangir
20.12.2016, 01:13, "Jonathan Corbet" <[email protected]>:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 23:53:40 +0200
> Cihangir Akturk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In the actual implementation ether_addr_equal function tests for equality to 0
>> when returning. It seems in commit 0d74c4 it is somehow overlooked to change
>> this operator to reflect the actual function.
>
> I received this patch two days ago; has something changed that you're
> sending it again?
My opinion, the patch its update. The assignment of "!=0" has already been fixed with patch.
I tested it.
> Meanwhile, there was a question from Ozgur Karatas on the patch, but I've
> not yet seen your response.
If you see fit your approval.
> Thanks,
>
> jon
Regards,
~Ozgur