[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40033993674bb8b5ef33ac33f28f3aff@codethink.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 12:27:27 +0100
From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, David.Laight@...lab.com, oneukum@...e.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbnet: smsc95xx: simplify tx_fixup code
On 2018-10-05 22:24, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:56:02 +0100
>
>> - memcpy(skb->data, &tx_cmd_a, 4);
>> + ptr = skb_push(skb, 8);
>> + tx_cmd_a = cpu_to_le32(tx_cmd_a);
>> + tx_cmd_b = cpu_to_le32(tx_cmd_b);
>> + memcpy(ptr, &tx_cmd_a, 4);
>> + memcpy(ptr+4, &tx_cmd_b, 4);
>
> Even a memcpy() through a void pointer does not guarantee that gcc will
> not emit word sized loads and stores.
>
> You must use the get_unaligned()/put_unaligned() facilities to do this
> properly.
Thanks, got a new version of the series just being tested with this.
Should it go into the original, or as a separate change?
>
> I also agree that making a proper type and structure instead of using
> a void pointer would be better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists