On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 15:15 +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 03:10 PM, David Laight wrote:
> >>> + {0x674bf11d, 0x00000038, 0x00000542, 0x0af6d466, 0xd8b6e4c1, 0xf6e93d6c},
> >> these could be
> >> + {0x674bf11d, 0x38, 0x542, 0x0af6d466, 0xd8b6e4c1, 0xf6e93d6c},
> > Or even:
> > #define X(a, b, c, d, e, f) {0x##a, 0x##b, 0x##c, 0x##d, 0x##e. 0x##f}
> > X(674bf11d, 38, 542, 0af6d466, d8b6e4c1, f6e93d6c),
> > ...
> > #undef X
>
> Sure, sounds good to me. We could do that as a follow-up.
I personally don't care for that sort of token-pasting macro
but, <shrug> if you want, I've no real objection either.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
