On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 07:08:58AM +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > On April 10, 2025 12:06:52 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 20:43 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > > > > This is orthogonal to the change to parity_odd() though. More specific > > > to the new parity_odd() you can now do following as parity_odd() > > > argument is u64: > > > > > > err = !parity_odd(*(u16 *)p); > > > > Can it though? Need to be careful with alignment with that, I'd think. > > My bad. You are absolutely right. > Then maybe we can still go with: err = !parity_odd(p[0] ^ p[1]); I believe this should still be a fairly safe approach? Regards, Kuan-Wei
