From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000_ethtool.c coding style fixes Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:43:40 +0200 Message-ID: <53F21F2C.9010905@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> <1408376459.2741.4.camel@joe-AO725> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Duyck , jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1408376459.2741.4.camel@joe-AO725> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 18/08/14 17:40, Joe Perches wrote: > 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.a > OK, thank you for your suggestions. I'll send an updated version of this patch soon.