From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932938Ab1FPUUY (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:20:24 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:56424 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932407Ab1FPUUU (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:20:20 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: ehci: use packed,aligned(4) instead of removing the packed attribute Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:20:01 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-rc1nosema+; KDE/4.6.3; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Alexander Holler , Alan Stern , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rabin Vincent References: <4DFA634D.6000907@ahsoftware.de> In-Reply-To: <4DFA634D.6000907@ahsoftware.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106162220.02185.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:2BaHJXMPeoWJzOevAfhacAxnJ2sWwTVLosxM/9tplZd EkUdF77JNuBF47LXIfM/wUb6QpFoUMQFnyvBcxMCTn5Evuuccg GtFsTRhrhoRVDzm0DZ87vNuLUwH8tnWl8ObbD2T4GqwSeNgu2v J9+0AVVf+K2oelARnutHXmED8x3YgJZcZ0UAeOyQMWWwzYZHxf e3X+HonaT80JczX9A+rlA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 16 June 2011 22:10:53 Alexander Holler wrote: > Using packed doesn't seem to be necessary (at least not with those > versions of gcc I'm using here), I've tried both versions (on arm, > without packed and with packed, aligned(4)) and both are working. I've > only posted the patch because I found the usage of packed, aligned(4) > much clearer than without packed. And It might help avoiding such > discussions like this with people like me who aren't that deep involved > in gcc-specific implementation details. ;) > > Anyway, feel free to nack that patch. I don't really care and just > thought I should post it (e.g. as an alternative to removing that packed). At least I would be happier without the patch. I'm trying to convince people to not use these attributes unless required because too much harm is done when they are used without understanding the full consequences. I also recommend using __packed as localized as possible, i.e. set it for the members that need it, not the entire struct. I agree that your patch is harmless, it's just the opposite of a cleanup in my opinion. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:20:01 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] USB: ehci: use packed, aligned(4) instead of removing the packed attribute In-Reply-To: <4DFA634D.6000907@ahsoftware.de> References: <4DFA634D.6000907@ahsoftware.de> Message-ID: <201106162220.02185.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 16 June 2011 22:10:53 Alexander Holler wrote: > Using packed doesn't seem to be necessary (at least not with those > versions of gcc I'm using here), I've tried both versions (on arm, > without packed and with packed, aligned(4)) and both are working. I've > only posted the patch because I found the usage of packed, aligned(4) > much clearer than without packed. And It might help avoiding such > discussions like this with people like me who aren't that deep involved > in gcc-specific implementation details. ;) > > Anyway, feel free to nack that patch. I don't really care and just > thought I should post it (e.g. as an alternative to removing that packed). At least I would be happier without the patch. I'm trying to convince people to not use these attributes unless required because too much harm is done when they are used without understanding the full consequences. I also recommend using __packed as localized as possible, i.e. set it for the members that need it, not the entire struct. I agree that your patch is harmless, it's just the opposite of a cleanup in my opinion. Arnd