From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth__addr instead of memset Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:29:33 -0800 Message-ID: <1425378573.17273.9.camel@perches.com> References: <0c710456e4875ff00c1a9fcff9378ed15110dcd3.1425354528.git.joe@perches.com> <1425370617.2450.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1425371858.17273.3.camel@perches.com> <1425372295.2450.9.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1425372748.17273.6.camel@perches.com> <1425373219.2450.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1425373219.2450.13.camel@sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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__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.