On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
LR>On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 08:07:47PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
LR>...
LR>> : reveals the use of an explicit constant (6) in net/if_arp.h and
LR>> : netinet/if_ether.c; there is more of the same in net/bridge.c
LR>> : (my fault), net/if_atmsu
M. Warner Losh writes:
>
> static int ether_resolvemulti(struct ifnet *, struct sockaddr **,
> struct sockaddr *);
> -u_char etherbroadcastaddr[6] = { 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff };
> +u_char etherbroadcastaddr[ETHER_ADDR_LEN] =
> +{ 0xff, 0xff, 0xff,
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 08:07:47PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: ...
: > : reveals the use of an explicit constant (6) in net/if_arp.h and
: > : netinet/if_ether.c; there is more of the same in net/bridge
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 08:07:47PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
...
> : reveals the use of an explicit constant (6) in net/if_arp.h and
> : netinet/if_ether.c; there is more of the same in net/bridge.c
> : (my fault), net/if_atmsubr.c, netinet/if_ether.c, netncp/ncp_subr.c
>
> atmsubr?
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:18:09PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > OK. I'm not a network wonk, so I thought I'd run this by people
: > here. What do people think.
:
: sounds ok -- removing explicit constants i
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 05:18:09PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> OK. I'm not a network wonk, so I thought I'd run this by people
> here. What do people think.
sounds ok -- removing explicit constants is always good.
On passing:
* While you are at it,
grep etherbroadcastaddr sys/net*/
OK. I'm not a network wonk, so I thought I'd run this by people
here. What do people think.
Warner
--- //depot/user/imp/freebsd-imp/sys/net/if_ethersubr.c 2002/10/06 21:18:24
+++ //depot/user/imp/newcard/net/if_ethersubr.c 2002/10/11 22:58:57
@@ -124,7 +124,8 @@
static int ether_resolvemulti
