On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 09:48:33AM +0800, Jiayuan Chen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:27:03PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:31:44 +0800 Jiayuan Chen wrote: > > > - *(u8 *)skb_push(skb, 2) = 1; > > > + *(u16 *)skb_push(skb, 2) = 1; > > > > This will write the 1 to a different byte now, on big endian machines. > > Probably doesn't matter but I doubt it's intentional? > > -- > > pw-bot: cr > You are correct that I assigned the value in a way that produces different > data on big-endian and little-endian systems, although it doesn't cause > any issues. > I think it's better to assign it correctly according to the corresponding > header and add more comments to avoid confusion for other developers in > the future. I agree correctness is good. Perhaps I am over-thinking things, but does the following approach achieve both of the following? a) Initialise both bytes. b) Place the 1 consistently on both big and little endian hosts, as is the case without this patch (which I assume is correct). *(__be16 *)skb_push(skb, 2) = cpu_to_be16(1);
