[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170926.213354.305351416790211828.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com
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
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.
Thank you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists