lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] USB: ehci: use packed,aligned(4) instead of removing the packed attribute
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > > We don't fall into any of these cases, and therefore as you say, we
> > > don't need packed. Arnd and I have both explained this. So why do you
> > > keep arguing that we do need it?
> >
> > Please show me where I keep arguing that you need it?
>
> Not explicitly perhaps. But you did write:
>
> > Doesn't mean that because it used to work that it is strictly correct.
> > Wouldn't be the first time that a GCC upgrade broke the kernel because
> > the kernel wasn't describing things properly enough.
>
> which strongly implies that "packed" is needed. You also wrote:

In this case ...

> > Yes, but that's a consequence of not being able to access those fields
> > in their naturally aligned position anymore. Hence the addition of the
> > align attribute to tell the compiler that we know that the structure is
> > still aligned to a certain degree letting the compiler to avoid
> > byte-oriented instructions when possible.
>
> which is predicated on the assumption that "packed" is needed.

... and also in this case, I was talking about proper use of the packed
attribute in general, not at all about a specific case. I wanted to
provide a broader view to some people who expressed doubts and
misunderstanding in the hope that the archive could keep this knowledge
base available.

I apologize if that wasn't clear to you.


Nicolas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-21 22:45    [W:4.050 / U:0.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site