On 14.04.2015 10:00, Dan Carpenter wrote: > BAReq->addr1 is part of struct rtllib_hdr_2addr. It's 4 bytes into > the struct so it's fine. You're right - should I explicitly add __aligned() in such places or just leave comment in that case (for future commiters)? > I sort of like the ether_addr_copy_unaligned() macro because it would > let us silence some checkpatch false positives because otherwise people > will eventually introduce bugs like a dripping roof leak will eventually > destroy a building. But it should be in the main kernel header with a > name like that. And also this is misleading that we are using it for > data which is aligned. Is it ok if I do following steps for v3: - Align eth addresses that can be aligned (at least one structure - rtllib_rxb can't be aligned) - Apply eth_addr_copy where possible - Discuss and try to submit ether_addr_copy_unaligned on netdev list - If they reject the change - rename macro to something less confusing (rtllib_something) Regards and thanks for reviews, Mateusz _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
