From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751899AbaHRPlH (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:41:07 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0150.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.150]:39852 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751600AbaHRPlF (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:41:05 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:973:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2199:2393:2559:2562:2691:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:4250:4321:5007:6119:7652:7875:7903:8603:9108:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13160:13229:13255:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: cream06_4313be39ab94e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1750 Message-ID: <1408376459.2741.4.camel@joe-AO725> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000_ethtool.c coding style fixes From: Joe Perches To: Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz Cc: Alexander Duyck , jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:40:59 -0700 In-Reply-To: <53F21D6F.7000306@vipserv.org> References: <1408180328-4827-1-git-send-email-cristos@vipserv.org> <1408214489.2683.87.camel@joe-AO725> <53F21BEC.2070204@intel.com> <1408375914.2741.1.camel@joe-AO725> <53F21D6F.7000306@vipserv.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 17:36 +0200, Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz wrote: > On 18/08/14 17:31, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 08:29 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: > >> Doing any kind of pointer math on a void pointer is generally unsafe as > >> it is an incomplete type. The only reason why it works in GCC is > >> because GCC has a nonstandard extension that makes it report as having a > >> size of 1. > > > > I know. It's used in quite a few places in kernel code > > so I believe it's now a base assumption for the kernel. > > > Ok, so what do you suggest - void* or char* here ? Do what you (or Alex) think is best. My main point was trying to make the code a bit clearer.