[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1106211054460.2327-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:58:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
cc: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <gregkh@...e.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ehci: use packed,aligned(4) instead of removing
the packed attribute
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > We don't fall into any of these cases, and therefore as you say, we
> > don't need packed. Arnd and I have both explained this. So why do you
> > keep arguing that we do need it?
>
> Please show me where I keep arguing that you need it?
Not explicitly perhaps. But you did write:
> Doesn't mean that because it used to work that it is strictly correct.
> Wouldn't be the first time that a GCC upgrade broke the kernel because
> the kernel wasn't describing things properly enough.
which strongly implies that "packed" is needed. You also wrote:
> Yes, but that's a consequence of not being able to access those fields
> in their naturally aligned position anymore. Hence the addition of the
> align attribute to tell the compiler that we know that the structure is
> still aligned to a certain degree letting the compiler to avoid
> byte-oriented instructions when possible.
which is predicated on the assumption that "packed" is needed.
Alan Stern
--
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