Re: [PATCH 4/11] use ether_addr_equal_64bits

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Emmanuel Grumbach <egrumbach@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Johannes Berg
> > <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 19:57 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Johannes Berg wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 20:58 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> > > > > Is there any way we could catch (sparse, or some other script?) that
> >> > > > > struct reorganising won't break the condition needed ("within a
> >> > > > > structure that contains at least two more bytes")?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What kind of reorganizing could happen?  Do you mean that the programmer
> >> > > > might do at some time in the future, or something the compiler might do?
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm just thinking of a programmer, e.g. changing a struct like this:
> >> > >
> >> > >  struct foo {
> >> > >    u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
> >> > > -  u16 dummy;
> >> > >  };
> >> > >
> >> > > for example.
> >> >
> >> > That is easily resolved by:
> >> >
> >> > struct foo {
> >> >       u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
> >> >       u16 required_padding;   /* do not remove upon pain of death */
> >> > };
>
> Adding the u16 also changes the alignment of the whole struct. So it may
> cost one additional byte _in front of_ the struct.
>
> <asking-stupid-question-see-answer-below>
> While you're at it, why not just making a new 64-bit aligned type for
> Ethernet addresses, so it'll also work for
> !CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS?
> </asking-stupid-question-see-answer-below>
>
> >> That'd be a stupid waste of struct space. If anything, there should be
> >> *only* a comment saying that at least two bytes are needed - I'd still
> >> prefer an automated check.
> >
> > Frankly I am not sure I like the patch. This flow is not a fast path
>
> I also don't like it. To me this sounds like wasting space for nothing.
> BTW, would it be that more expensive to always do a 32+16 bit
> comparison?

No space is wasted by the patch.  The patch is only generated in the case
where there is currently enough space.

julia

> > at all. While I don't really care for the waste in iwlwifi (because
> > there isn't), I don't see the real point is make the code more
> > sensitive to changes to earn basically nothing.
>
> Thanks to this discussion, my eye fell on:
>
> static inline unsigned compare_ether_addr(const u8 *addr1, const u8 *addr2)
> {
>         const u16 *a = (const u16 *) addr1;
>         const u16 *b = (const u16 *) addr2;
>
>         BUILD_BUG_ON(ETH_ALEN != 6);
>         return ((a[0] ^ b[0]) | (a[1] ^ b[1]) | (a[2] ^ b[2])) != 0;
> }
>
> What if addr1 or addr2 are odd, and this is running on an architecture that
> doesn't support unaligned accesses at all?? Have we been lucky forever?
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>