On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:26, Jeff Garzik wrote: > David S. Miller wrote: > > From: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:56:49 -0600 > > > >>Since a5fe736eaf9bae1b45317313de04b564441b94f2 (2.6.13-rc1 ish), > >>is_valid_ether_addr() has been broken, because its assumption that > >>FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF is a multicast address is wrong. Ouch. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Good catch, patch applied. > > "Fix" this, and you break wireless. We need to split up definitions, > otherwise you fix one code to break another.
Crud. It looks like most callers are using it to mean "is this a valid address for the piece of hardware I'm driving" - perhaps it should become "is_valid_nic_addr()" ?? cheers -- Michael Ellerman IBM OzLabs email: michael:ellerman.id.au inmsg: mpe:jabber.org wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
pgpUSoaUvk30d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
