[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170927113241.GB4630@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:32:41 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, andreas.noever@...il.com,
michael.jamet@...el.com, yehezkel.bernat@...el.com,
amir.jer.levy@...el.com, Mario.Limonciello@...l.com,
lukas@...ner.de, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, andrew@...n.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] thunderbolt: Add support for XDomain properties
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:33:54PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:07:24 +0300
>
> > +struct tb_property_entry {
> > + u32 key_hi;
> > + u32 key_lo;
> > + u16 length;
> > + u8 reserved;
> > + u8 type;
> > + u32 value;
> > +} __packed;
> > +
> > +struct tb_property_rootdir_entry {
> > + u32 magic;
> > + u32 length;
> > + struct tb_property_entry entries[];
> > +} __packed;
> > +
> > +struct tb_property_dir_entry {
> > + u32 uuid[4];
> > + struct tb_property_entry entries[];
> > +} __packed;
>
> There is no apparent need for __packed here, and __packed should be
> avoided unless absolutely necessary as it pessimizes the code
> significantly on some architectures.
>
> Please remove __packed from these datastructures unless you can
> prove it is absolutely needed and, in such case, please document
> in a comment why that requirement exists. Because from the layout
> of these types, everything will be packed in just fine without
> __packed.
I will thanks.
Just for my education, is there some rule which tells when __packed is
to be used? For example the above structures are all 32-bit aligned but
how about something like:
struct foo {
u32 value1;
u8 value2;
};
If the on-wire format requires such structures I assume __packed
is needed here?
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists