[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1401061007160.2079@hadrien>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:09:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/11] use ether_addr_equal_64bits
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-31 at 17:40 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > > If nothing else, then some run-time code that calculates the offset off
> > > and asserts if it is broken in module initialization or similar might
> > > be good enough.
> >
> > Could be OK. Something right in or after the structure declaration would
> > be nicest.
>
> I don't think you can put a BUILD_BUG_ON() into the structure
> declaration (it's code, not declarations), but I think you could just
> put
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct foo) - offsetof(struct foo, addr) < 8);
>
> with the user(s?) and that should catch the scenario I was worrying
> about?
OK, thanks. That is what I had in mind. But I was hoping to be able to
put it with the structure. Perhaps there is a way to make a macro that
expands to a dummy function that contains the BUILD_BUG_ON? But I guess
that would waste space?
I think that 8 should be 16?
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists