[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DD0094FEF@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:10:50 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Vivien Didelot' <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
'Florian Fainelli' <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"kernel@...oirfairelinux.com" <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: split dsa_port's netdev member
From: Vivien Didelot
> Sent: 13 October 2017 16:29
> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> writes:
>
> >>> How about using:
> >>>
> >>> union {
> >>> struct net_device *master;
> >>> struct net_device *slave;
> >>> } netdev;
> >> ...
> >>
> >> You can remove the 'netdev' all the compilers support unnamed unions.
> >
> > There are issues with older GCC versions, see the commit 42275bd8fcb3
> > ("switchdev: don't use anonymous union on switchdev attr/obj structs")
> >
> > That's why I kept it in the v2 I sent.
>
> At the same time, I can see that struct sk_buff uses anonym union a lot.
>
> It seems weird that one raised a compiler issue for switchdev but not
> for skbuff.h... Do you think it is viable to drop the name here then?
I believe the problem is with initialisers for static structures
that contain anonymous unions.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists