Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752411AbaBXV23 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:28:29 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0134.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.134]:54422 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbaBXV22 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:28:28 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:968:988:989:1260:1261:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3653:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3873:3874:4078:4081:4250:4321:5007:6119:7652:7903:9010:10004:10400:10848:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12043:12517:12519:12740:13019:13069:13311:13357,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: shape72_2c85321abd645 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2165 Message-ID: <1393277304.11020.64.camel@joe-AO722> Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: Add warning for new __packed additions From: Joe Perches To: Tom Rini Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:28:24 -0800 In-Reply-To: <530BB571.8080509@ti.com> References: <1393274296-26179-1-git-send-email-trini@ti.com> <1393275606.11020.59.camel@joe-AO722> <530BB571.8080509@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 16:11 -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > On 02/24/2014 04:00 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 15:38 -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > >> While there are valid reasons to use __packed, often the answer is that > >> you should be doing something else here instead. [] > > How often is this actually a problem? > > I think the first line answers the second one, honestly. If one wants > to get pedantic about things and really investigate there's probably > some unneeded usages scattered about, and that's generally the type of > thing one wants to address when checking whole files, right? Maybe not. That entirely depends on the correct and necessary uses of packed vs the incorrect usage rates. I think almost all packed uses are correct and there might be a lot of patches submitted to remove them by over-zealous advocates of checkpatch -f. > > This may be better as > > "Using 'packed' can impact performance\n" > > and only tested when not in --file mode. > > I can also make this change, sure, just point me off-list for an example > to crib from and test? Look at the FSF mailing address test as an example: my $msg_type = \&ERROR; $msg_type = \&CHK if ($file); &{$msg_type}("FSF_MAILING_ADDRESS", -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/