[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:29:33 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth_<foo>_addr instead of
memset
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 10:00 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 00:52 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > > > My guess is the eth_zero_addr and eth_broadcast functions
> > > > are always taking aligned(2) arguments, just like all the
> > > > is_<foo>_ether_addr functions.
> > >
> > > Err, are you serious???
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > That *clearly* isn't true, and if it was then
> > > this patch wouldn't be safe at all.
> >
> > And why is that?
> >
> > Until patch 1 of this series, eth_zero_addr and
> > eth_broadcast_addr was just an inline for a memset.
> >
> > Even after patch 1, it's effectively still memset.
>
> Exactly. It therefore *doesn't* require an aligned(2) argument, unlike
> what you stated above, hence my question if you're serious (and perhaps
> looking at some other code that I don't have).
Nope, you simply misunderstood what I did write.
What I said was that the arguments were likely
already aligned(2), not that the alignment was
a requirement.
--
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