That's understandable, thanks for fixing it.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:19:36PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > Correct, the existing code had compensated by always NOTing the result > of this function. This patch makes no change in behavior. I had > gotten really confused in future patches assuming that > eth-addr_equal_except() did what it says it does. > > Ethan > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 05:44:38PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> It turns out that eth_addr_equal_except() computed the exact > >> opposite of what it purported to. It returned true if the two > >> arguments where *not* equal. This is extremely confusing, so this > >> patch changes it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ethan Jackson <[email protected]> > > > > This makes no observable behavioral change, right? That is, it doesn't > > fix a bug? > > > > Assuming that's true, it looks OK to me. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
