From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 22 20:06:31 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637A41065675; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F1E8FC21; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87355B97E; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:06:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Adrian Chadd Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:21:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p17; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <50324DB4.6080905@cabletv.dp.ua> <201208220802.14588.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201208221521.06954.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:06:30 -0400 (EDT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Mitya , Warner Losh , Wojciech Puchar Subject: Re: Replace bcopy() to update ether_addr X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:06:31 -0000 On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:54:07 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 22 August 2012 05:02, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:34:42 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> What about just creating an ETHER_ADDR_COPY(dst, src) and putting that > >> in a relevant include file, then hide the ugliness there? > >> > >> The same benefits will likely appear when copying wifi MAC addresses > >> to/from headers. > >> > >> Thanks, I'm glad someone noticed this. > > > > I doubt we even _need_ the ugliness. We should just use *dst = *src > > unless there is a compelling reason not to. > > Because it's not very clear? :-) I'd much prefer my array-of-things > copies to be explicit. Eh? 'struct foo *src, *dst; *dst = *src' is pretty bog-standard C. That isn't really all that obtuse. > Also, the optimisation and compiler silliness may not be THAT obvious > on intel (except when you're luigi and using netmap) but I can't help > but wonder whether the same does hold for MIPS/ARM. Getting it wrong > there will lead to some very very poor performing code. Don't you think there's a really good chance the compiler knows how to copy a structure appropriately for each architecture already? -- John Baldwin