Re: [PATCH] net: compare_ether_addr[_64bits]() has no ordering
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: 2012-05-08 16:44:32
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 03:31 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 23:35:36 -0700quoted
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 02:26 -0400, David Miller wrote:quoted
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 07:25:44 +0200quoted
I suppose I could fix those first and then later change the type, but I think having a "compare_ether_addr" function that returns *false* when they *match* would be rather confusing. I'd rather have "equal_ether_addr()" that returns *true* when they match. I guess we could introduce equal_ether_addr() though and slowly convert, keeping compare_ether_addr() as a sort of wrapper around it.Indeed, this is one way to proceed.perhaps is_equal_ether_addr or is_same_ether_addr instead?Hmmm, my first choice would have been "eth_addr_equal()"
Perhaps ether_addr_equal for some API naming semi-consistency. $ grep "\bint.*is_.*ether_addr" include/linux/etherdevice.h static inline int is_zero_ether_addr(const u8 *addr) static inline int is_multicast_ether_addr(const u8 *addr) static inline int is_local_ether_addr(const u8 *addr) static inline int is_broadcast_ether_addr(const u8 *addr) static inline int is_unicast_ether_addr(const u8 *addr) static inline int is_valid_ether_addr(const u8 *addr) Perhaps all of these should be bool too (patch in a separate email)