On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
use memcmp(). It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
use memcmp(). It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use unsigned long
David Miller a écrit :
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:14:23 +0200
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Although I don't think gcc does anything fancy since we don't
use memcmp(). It's a tradeoff, we'd like to use
[snip]
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h2007-04-17
13:26:48.0 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.0 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
{
unsigned char prio[2];
unsigned char addr[6];
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(8)));
Why 8?
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
[snip]
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h 2007-04-17
13:26:48.0 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.0 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
{
unsigned char
David Miller wrote:
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
[snip]
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h 2007-04-17
13:26:48.0 -0700 +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_private.h
2007-04-17 13:30:29.0 -0700 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
{
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
[snip]
--- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_private.h2007-04-17
13:26:48.0 -0700 +++
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:44:39 -0700
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:43:56 +0400
[snip]
---
From: Evgeny Kravtsunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
br_stp_recalculate_bridge_id() in which one of the addresses
is unsigned char *, and thus may not be
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
From: Evgeny Kravtsunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
David Miller wrote:
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
From: Evgeny Kravtsunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:55:41 -0700
David Miller wrote:
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:49:30 +0400
From: Evgeny Kravtsunov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
this instead.
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are 2-bytes aligned in memory.
This is not true for br_stp_change_bridge_id() and
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700
The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
this instead.
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the addresses
passed are
David Miller a écrit :
From: Stephen Hemminger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:37:23 -0700
The previous patch relied on the bridge id being aligned by
the compiler (which happens as a side effect). So please use
this instead.
compare_ether_addr() implicitly requires that the
From: Eric Dumazet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:24:36 +0200
I suspect you missed part of Stephen patch :
(maybe some mailer problem...)
My bad, sorry :(
I pushed the other version of the fix to Linus just now.
I'll put Stephen's version in if he sends me a fixup relative
to
16 matches
Mail list logo
