On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51:28AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 19:36 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:58:45PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > > > > > There is code duplication of a masked ethernet address comparison here > > > > so make it a separate function instead. > > > > > > > > Miscellanea: > > > > > > > > o Neaten alignment of FWINV macro uses to make it clearer for the reader > > > Applied, thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > This masked_ether_addr_equal function could go into etherdevice.h, > > > > but I don't see another use like it in kernel code. Is there one? > > > > > > This is specific of iptables, not even nftables would use this. So I > > > would keep this in the iptables tree. > > > > Did you see the other patch that adds a generic > > ether_addr_equal_masked() and uses it in a few > > more files? > > You mean this one: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/636208/ > > OK, so I'll toss the previous and will take this one instead. > > As I said my opinion is that ether_addr_equal_masked() is only > required by netfilter, but thinking it well I don't really mind in > what header this function is placed given that these are our internal > headers. git am reports patch I get from patchwork is corrupt at line 37. Tried a couple of tricks to fix it but this didn't work. Would you mind resubmitting this patch? Sorry for the inconvenience. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
