[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E048C0D.7020403@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:07:25 +0200
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: __packed vs. __attribute__((packed)) in kernel headers
On 23.6.2011 18:57, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:02 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> On 2011.06.23 at 09:42 -0400, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-22 08:34 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>> One possible solution would be to let the "scripts/headers_install.pl"
>>>> script automatically substitute __packed with __attribute__((packed)):
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/scripts/headers_install.pl b/scripts/headers_install.pl
> []
>> I'm not an expert of Perl regular expressions, but maybe this:
>> $line =~ s/\s__packed;$/ __attribute__((packed));/g
>> is a little bit closer to the intention?
>
> Maybe:
>
> s/\b__packed\b/__attribute__((packed))/g
Markus, will you post a patch with this fix?
> though this argues against redefining
> gcc __attributes__ in the first place.
It's a handy shortcut, so why not have it. Although I don't understand
why checkpatch.pl has to warn about __attribute__((packed)).
Michal
--
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