4 May
2013
4 May
'13
12:17 p.m.
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 08:12:22PM +0800, Marek Lindner wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 04:04:34 Antonio
Quartulli wrote:
Yeah, as I told you on IRC the comment is ready :-)
Will add it in the next version
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:58:56AM +0800, Marek
Lindner wrote:
As we discussed on IRC please add a big comment here explaining why we do
things this way and not differently. On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 22:34:30 Antonio
Quartulli wrote:
yes
@@ -1535,7 +1535,9 @@ static uint32_t
batadv_tt_global_crc(struct
batadv_priv *bat_priv, orig_node)) continue;
- crc ^= crc32c(0, tt_common->addr, ETH_ALEN);
+ crc_tmp = crc32c(0, &tt_common->vid,
+ sizeof(tt_common->vid));
+ crc ^= crc32c(crc_tmp, tt_common->addr,
ETH_ALEN);
}
rcu_read_unlock();
Is it necessary to define another variable ? Why not:
crc = crc32c(0, &tt_common->vid, sizeof(tt_common->vid));
crc ^= crc32c(crc, tt_common->addr, ETH_ALEN);
because crc_tmp is the result of the CRC operation on the VID and the MAC
address (so one per client), while crc is the container of all the crc_tmp
xor'ed together..