Return-path: Received: from vs166246.vserver.de ([62.75.166.246]:57584 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754128AbYAYScQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:16 -0500 From: Michael Buesch To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc7 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:30:26 +0100 Cc: Dan Williams , Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200801251930.27022.mb@bu3sch.de> (sfid-20080125_183219_613306_59158400) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 25 January 2008 19:22:13 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > But complaining about a vendor who does a good job technically, for > > non-technical reasons, I really don't see that as being fine. > > Side note: I also think the wireless parts here are doing things wrong. > > Why _would_ you care about alignment? We used to have issues like that in > the normal networking code, and it was a mistake there too. Why isn't the > wireless stack just extracting the header explicitly, or using > "get_unaligned()" like regular networking? The problem is _not_ the wireless header access, but the alignment of the embedded protocol stack, if the header does not have a size aligned to 4. Do we want to clutter the whole networking stack below wireless with get_unaligned() or attribute(packed) or something like that? -- Greetings Michael.