From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755560AbbCCIwd (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:52:33 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0061.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.61]:58801 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752042AbbCCIwb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 03:52:31 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:960:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2199:2393:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3871:3872:3873:3874:4321:5007:6119:6261:7903:10004:10400:10481:10848:11026:11232:11658:11914:12296:12517:12519:12740:13069:13311:13357:19900:21080,0,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: coil19_6d1599305471e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1799 Message-ID: <1425372748.17273.6.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 13/14] wireless: Use eth__addr instead of memset From: Joe Perches To: Johannes Berg Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:52:28 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1425372295.2450.9.camel@sipsolutions.net> 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 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 Tue, 2015-03-03 at 09:44 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Other than that, I guess I'll apply this, but I really wish there was a > > > way to distinguish more easily which of these require alignment and > > > which don't. > > > > 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.