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_<foo>_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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
