Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265206AbUF1VAE (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:00:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265207AbUF1VAE (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:00:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50650 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265206AbUF1U74 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:59:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:58:21 -0700 From: "David S. Miller" To: Scott Wood Cc: scott@timesys.com, oliver@neukum.org, zaitcev@redhat.com, greg@kroah.com, arjanv@redhat.com, jgarzik@redhat.com, tburke@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net, david-b@pacbell.net Subject: Re: drivers/block/ub.c Message-Id: <20040628135821.6b38e377.davem@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040628204857.GA5321@yoda.timesys> References: <20040626130645.55be13ce@lembas.zaitcev.lan> <200406270631.41102.oliver@neukum.org> <20040626233423.7d4c1189.davem@redhat.com> <200406271242.22490.oliver@neukum.org> <20040627142628.34b60c82.davem@redhat.com> <20040628141517.GA4311@yoda.timesys> <20040628132531.036281b0.davem@redhat.com> <20040628204857.GA5321@yoda.timesys> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; sparc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Face: "_;p5u5aPsO,_Vsx"^v-pEq09'CU4&Dc1$fQExov$62l60cgCc%FnIwD=.UF^a>?5'9Kn[;433QFVV9M..2eN.@4ZWPGbdi<=?[:T>y?SD(R*-3It"Vj:)"dP Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1339 Lines: 30 On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:48:57 -0400 Scott Wood wrote: > However, what if it were to be run on a machine that can't address > smaller quantities than 64-bit? Such a machine sounds silly, but it > could happen (just as early Alphas couldn't directly load or store > smaller than 32-bit quantities), You are still hitting right at the heart of why I think all of this talk is madness and silly, you're staying in the realm of "what ifs". Cross that bridge when we get there and no sooner, ok? :-) As a side note, even though early Alpha's could not address smaller than word quantities directly with loads and stores, the structure layout defined by the Alpha ABIs did not pad such elements inside of structures. It simply emitted word sized loads, then extracted the byte or half-word using shifts and masks. So even if such a maniac machine as you described were created, it would likely shift+mask out from 64-bit loads the elements it needed instead of padding structures uselessly. Structure padding eats memory which is why ABI designers avoid it like the plague. - 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/