From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:54612 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752137AbbCCIo7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:44:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1425372295.2450.9.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20150303_094559_604376_B1B7D1D4) Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth__addr instead of memset From: Johannes Berg To: Joe Perches Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 09:44:55 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1425371858.17273.3.camel@perches.com> References: <0c710456e4875ff00c1a9fcff9378ed15110dcd3.1425354528.git.joe@perches.com> <1425370617.2450.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1425371858.17273.3.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Other than that, I guess I'll apply this, but I really wish there was a > > way to distinguish more easily which of these require alignment and > > which don't. > > My guess is the eth_zero_addr and eth_broadcast functions > are always taking aligned(2) arguments, just like all the > is__ether_addr functions. Err, are you serious??? That *clearly* isn't true, and if it was then this patch wouldn't be safe at all. > > eth_zero_addr() doesn,t but is_zero_ether_addr() does. So does > > ether_addr_copy(). Frankly, it's getting a bit confusing, so I can't > > really fault anyone for using memset()/memcpy(). > > I suspect more than anything else all these are historic. I'd expect a mix here, certainly. Not all of them are really old though. johannes