From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: net: ethernet: intel: e1000: e1000_ethtool.c coding style fixes Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:45:53 -0700 Message-ID: <53F21FB1.7060607@intel.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Krzysztof Majzerowicz-Jaszcz , jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Joe Perches Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:16627 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbaHRPqL (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:46:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1408375914.2741.1.camel@joe-AO725> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/18/2014 08:31 AM, 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. Well that is something that should probably be fixed then. I don't believe it is safe to be doing any kind of pointer math on a void pointer. We really shouldn't be using any GCC specific bits unless we absolutely have to. Thanks, Alex