[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160309.120937.544019796470786375.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: johannes@...solutions.net
Cc: sd@...asysnail.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
hannes@...essinduktion.org, fw@...len.de, pabeni@...hat.com,
stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] macsec: introduce IEEE 802.1AE driver
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 12:24:20 +0100
> Yeah, there's probably no way a compiler could ever do something with
> it that's not the same as packed, but it seems to me that just out of
> convention structs that have some wire-format meaning should usually be
> __packed.
Not unless absolutely necessary.
There is a serious performance penalty for using __packed on some
architectures. __packed has several undesirable side-effects, one
of which is that it causes the compiler to be unable to assume the
alignment of anything.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists