On April 11, 2025 6:37:35 PM Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Yes. Or whatever the name will be ;-)
Regards,
Arend
