>> actually...since i'm just mouthing off here, it would probably be
>> "even better"(tm) to have a generic hw_input() routine that all the
>> other *_input() routines (eg, ether_input(), ppp_input(), arc_input(),
>> atm_input(), fddi_input(), ddp_input()...) could pass up to that would
>> check something like this.  top-heavy, of course.
>
>you don't want this. We have a highly optimized ethernet compare function,
>that does not need passing a parameter.

yes, but i was just making a (silly?) case for an abstraction layer
that could provide a piece of (needed?) general functionality.  it
seems to me that placing code in each ethernet driver to the compare
would be silly, since the code would be indentical for each driver.
and then to extend to the other hardware layers, since they might like
to have the same option.

>Comparing one-byte ARCnet addresses is even easier, should it be needed.

sure.  but i've very little experience with other hardware layers, so
i on't know in advance their characteristics (ie length, features,
etc).

>We better keep this specialized.

ether_input() then?

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."