Hi,
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 10:15 AM Miquel Raynal
<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
>
> > > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * IEEE 802.15.4 PAN management
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2021 Qorvo US, Inc
> > > > > > + * Authors:
> > > > > > + * - David Girault <david.girault@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > + * - Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > > +#include <net/cfg802154.h>
> > > > > > +#include <net/af_ieee802154.h>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static bool cfg802154_same_addr(struct ieee802154_pan_device *a,
> > > > > > + struct ieee802154_addr *b)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + if (!a || !b)
> > > > > > + return false;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + switch (b->mode) {
> > > > > > + case IEEE802154_ADDR_SHORT:
> > > > > > + return a->short_addr == b->short_addr;
> > > > > > + case IEEE802154_ADDR_LONG:
> > > > > > + return a->extended_addr == b->extended_addr;
> > > > > > + default:
> > > > > > + return false;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't we already have such a helper already?
> > > >
> > > > There must also be a check on (a->mode != b->mode) because short_addr
> > > > and extended_addr share memory in this struct.
> > >
> > > True.
> > >
> > > Actually the ieee802154_addr structure uses an enum to store either
> > > the short address or the extended addres, while at the MAC level I'd
> > > like to compare with what I call a ieee802154_pan_device: the PAN
> > > device is part of a list defining the associated neighbors and contains
> > > both an extended address and a short address once associated.
> > >
> > > I do not want to compare the PAN ID here and I do not need to compare
> > > if the modes are different because the device the code is running on
> > > is known to have both an extended address and a short address field
> > > which have been initialized.
> > >
> >
> > I see, so it is guaranteed that the mode value is the same?
>
> I looked more carefully at the code of the association section,
> we will always know the extended address of the devices which are
> associated to us, however there may be situations where the second
> device to compare with this list only comes with a short address and pan
> ID, so your initial comment needs to be addressed.
>
> > > With all these constraints, I think it would require more code to
> > > re-use that small function than just writing a slightly different one
> > > here which fully covers the "under association/disassociation" case, no?
> > >
> >
> > I am questioning here currently myself if it's enough to uniquely
> > identify devices with only short or extended. For extended I would say
> > yes, for short I would say no.
>
> As long as we know the PAN ID, it should be fine.
>
yep, so you will add a check of panid when mode is short address type?
- Alex
