From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965036AbXBTP2S (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:28:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965039AbXBTP2S (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:28:18 -0500 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172]:62800 "EHLO mgw-ext13.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965036AbXBTP2R convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:28:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/44 take 2] [UBI] internal common header From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org To: David Woodhouse Cc: Theodore Tso , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Frank Haverkamp , Josh Boyer , Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: <1171984555.3518.5.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> References: <20070217165424.5845.4390.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20070217165449.5845.18238.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20070219105445.GA16930@infradead.org> <1171976753.4039.27.camel@sauron> <20070220145503.GC3170@thunk.org> <1171984555.3518.5.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:24:15 +0200 Message-Id: <1171985055.4039.44.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-1.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2007 15:24:15.0988 (UTC) FILETIME=[2EAFBB40:01C75503] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 15:15 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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. Bear in mind we share this header with user-space, so it is safer to use packed as well as C99 types. -- Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)