In-Reply-To: <1148034391.3875.109.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
References: <20060518160940.GS7570@earth.li> <20060518165728.GA26113@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20060519090142.GB7570@earth.li> <20060519100303.GB17270@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <1148034391.3875.109.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <1C9E7AB3-2DD3-40EA-B0F1-E0713A58E490@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn_Engel?= <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>,
       Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add Amstrad Delta NAND support.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 02:10:57 +0200
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 868
Lines: 23

>>>> And please create a structure containing both struct mtd_info and
>>>> struct nand_chip.  Then use sizeof(that structure)...

> It's fine as-is. The claim that it's nicer to introduce an extra
> datatype just for the allocation is subjective, at best.

Not just for the allocation, but also for getting the address of
the second struct, after that allocation.

If the second struct has bigger alignment required than the first,
the current code gets the second struct misaligned.  Putting both
into one bigger struct would add the required padding.

(Say: sizes 4 and 8, alignment requirements 4 and 8 resp.)


Segher

-
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/