On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 04:10:17PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2012 14:32:46 Martin Hundebøll wrote:
static int batadv_check_unicast_packet(struct sk_buff *skb, int hdr_size) { struct ethhdr *ethhdr; @@ -564,15 +574,15 @@ static int batadv_check_unicast_packet(struct sk_buff *skb, int hdr_size)
/* packet with unicast indication but broadcast recipient */ if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest))
return -1;
return -2;/* packet with broadcast sender address */ if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_source))
return -1;
return -3;/* not for me */ if (!batadv_is_my_mac(ethhdr->h_dest))
return -1;
return -4;return 0;
}
Returning meaningless numbers isn't the way to go. Either we make our own defines or we re-use our E***** friends.
If I am not mistaken you only use "-4" in your network coding code. Maybe you want to reduce this distinction to two cases only?
e.g. * -EINVAL : incorrect header or bad fields (-1, -2, -3)..the packet is not valid in the end * something else for your case..what about -EREMOTE ?
By the way, I suggest to send this patch separately. It increases the chance of getting merged faster and reduces your patchset.
I agree on this. It would simplify your daily rebasing task. And when/if you do so, remember to change the commit message: networking does not exist yet.
Cheers,