On 2013/12/23 16:33, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 13:10 +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> Use the recently added and possibly more efficient
>> ether_addr_equal_unaligned to instead of memcmp.
>>
>> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> net/bridge/br_stp_if.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
>> index 656a6f3..04217d1 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_stp_if.c
>> @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ bool br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id(struct net_bridge *br)
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) {
>> if (addr == br_mac_zero ||
>> - memcmp(p->dev->dev_addr, addr, ETH_ALEN) < 0)
>> + !ether_addr_equal_unaligned(p->dev->dev_addr, addr) < 0)
>> addr = p->dev->dev_addr;
>>
>> }
>
> We cannot do this change.
> !ether_addr_equal() isn't identical to memcmp().
> memcmp() can return negative value but ether_addr_equal() cannot.
> br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() is searching the smallest address among
> its ports. This change breaks it.
>
> Thanks,
> Toshiaki Makita
Yes, I miss it, the negative value is useful here, thanks for point out.
Regards
Ding
>
>
>
