[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header
    On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 09:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > It appears that the reason why you are doing this is because you think
    > you need the (packed) attribute. Not needed; Linux assumes all over
    > the place 16, 32, and 64 types are packed. If Linux is ever compiled
    > on an architecture where this isn't true, the compiler will probably
    > need to be fixed so these assumptions are true, since all manner of
    > things will break.

    No, the packedness is irrelevant -- the reason is just to catch all the
    places where you might otherwise forget to use byte-swapping accesses.

    > It would be much better to use __be32 and __be64, so you get better
    > type checking, and you will catch bugs caused by forgetting to use
    > be32_to_cpu, et. al.

    The technique Artem uses is derived from what I do in JFFS2. It predates
    the use of sparse to catch such errors, and works in gcc for _everyone_
    without having to do anything special (like run sparse).


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-20 16:19    [W:0.019 / U:63.536 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site