[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090724230619.GB13702@logfs.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:06:20 +0200
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.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 July 2009 14:50:25 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> 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:
> > >
> > > 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.
I was talking about "__packed" vs. "__attribute__((packed))". But yes,
avoiding packed structures where possible is a good idea.
Jörn
--
"[One] doesn't need to know [...] how to cause a headache in order
to take an aspirin."
-- Scott Culp, Manager of the Microsoft Security Response Center, 2001
--
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