Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YpCUzStDnSgQLNFN@debian> <CAHk-=wg0uGAX5DYZq+tY2KeUAR8DtR91YE1y9CkPMKkKOyE4jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVatmNGPbSdRNQuwJEWAaPtqb3vBYRjvsuBpoRUnhEHj=X5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wisQd8yiPX=SsK3eFiakKo713hq4SyqPWsJ-oyAmLFefQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <YpIR67FMtTGCwARZ@debian> <CAHk-=wjuyHE=1wLgHncub8FfgeyYqfWYsy4-YrhAvq9991h_Aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wi_hJV0V=Ecg2dzbe2P_H1XKTu6VP_AtCH6u=tis31ayg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0-QyOQiieEvM0yQb43XbCtPmeao8UvoAsdFnjCxYPz7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whfmwzjF4eBPYS6pHFqHVzJF3m=2h=gRWSRyHks8V=ABA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87a6aztli2.fsf@intel.com> <877d63tleq.fsf@intel.com> <CAK8P3a0-S77QLR1dK3NT6ot7JTAD5AdojAZJr-Xi112-v5EOdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87czfvrwsv.fsf@intel.com> <CAK8P3a0HNOCOSx9UONw6gf1UUU8J4iAOmMFP8-DtJ3O7XAACsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <874k17ru44.fsf@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <874k17ru44.fsf@intel.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 16:26:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2Zg2QDS1_Ysn8-Zqqd+K7bbTFS7JV7gPabp6nvPiKaog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mainline build failure due to f1e4c916f97f ("drm/edid: add EDID
 block count and size helpers")
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?VmlsbGUgU3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>, Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 4:08 PM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > struct my_driver_priv {
> >        struct device dev;
> >        u8 causes_misalignment;
> >        spinlock_t lock;
> >        atomic_t counter;
> > } __packed; /* this annotation is harmful because it breaks the atomics */
>
> I wonder if this is something that could be caught with coccinelle. Or
> sparse. Are there any cases where this combo is necessary? (I can't
> think of any, but it's a low bar. ;)
>
> Cc: Julia.

I think one would first have to make a list of data types that are not
meant to be in a packed structure. It could be a good start to
search for any packed aggregates with a pointer, atomic_t or spinlock_t
in them, but there are of course many more types that you won't
find in hardware structures.

> > or if the annotation does not change the layout like
> >
> > struct my_dma_descriptor {
> >      __le64 address;
> >      __le64 length;
> > } __packed; /* does not change layout but makes access slow on some
> > architectures */
>
> Why is this the case, though? I'd imagine the compiler could figure this
> out.

When you annotate the entire structure as __packed without an
extra __aligned() annotation, the compiler has to assume that the
structure itself is unaligned as well. On many of the older architectures,
this will result in accessing the values one byte at a time. Marking
the structure as "__packed __aligned(8)" instead would be harmless.

When I have a structure with a few misaligned members, I generally
prefer to only annotate the members that are not naturally aligned,
but this approach is not very common.

         Arnd