On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 10:00 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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). Nope, you simply misunderstood what I did write. What I said was that the arguments were likely already aligned(2), not that the alignment was a requirement. -- 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
