Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce compat_u64 and compat_s64 types
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
       Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070615121133.GF8154@parisc-linux.org>
References: <200706150159.l5F1xNgM000459@hera.kernel.org>
	 <1181897905.26853.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <200706151128.39566.arnd@arndb.de> <200706151131.38429.arnd@arndb.de>
	 <20070615121133.GF8154@parisc-linux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:38:32 +0100
Message-Id: <1181911112.25228.472.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 875
Lines: 24

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 06:11 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> You're relying on compat_[us]64 being only used in structures which are
> already packed. 

In which case the whole exercise is pointless, on account of the
structure being already packed. It was _already_ laid out the same on
32-bit and 64-bit builds.

>  If someone uses them in a non-packed struct, they won't
> decrease the alignment.  I think it would be more effective to specify
> it as:
> __attribute__((aligned(4), packed))

Good point. Yes, it looks like we need the additional 'packed' in order
for the aligned(4) to be anything other than a no-op.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/