[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090724145025.12da5a6e@nehalam>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:50:25 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Sam Ramji <sramji@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Hank Janssen <hjanssen@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 34/54] Staging: hv: remove STRUCT_PACKED and
STRUCT_ALIGNED defines
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:32:19 +0200
Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 July 2009 01:46:41 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 17 July 2009, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ typedef struct _RING_BUFFER {
> > > // volatile u32 InterruptMask;
> > > // Ring data starts here + RingDataStartOffset !!! DO NOT place any fields below this !!!
> > > u8 Buffer[0];
> > > -} STRUCT_PACKED RING_BUFFER;
> > > +} __attribute__((packed)) RING_BUFFER;
> > >
> >
> > The data structure is actually packed already, the attribute does not make it better
> > and could be removed. We also have __packed as a shortcut for __attribute__((packed)).
>
> Honestly, I don't know how useful __packed really is. In a shared
> kernel/userspace header, it is only defined for the kernel.
>
As I remember, gcc generates worse code for packed structures on many architectures
since it may have to do byte fetchs/recombining to avoid unaligned
accesses.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists