On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 00:52 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > > 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. Exactly. It therefore *doesn't* require an aligned(2) argument, unlike what you stated above, hence my question if you're serious (and perhaps looking at some other code that I don't have). My argument/complaint is that it isn't obvious from these which ones do require aligned(2) argument. Therefore, it's not obvious without going back to the definitions where the conversion is safe and where it isn't. Clearly, for example, memcmp() cannot always be replaced with ether_addr_equal(). johannes -- 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
