On 12/01/2017 21:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
In the next few patches, we will depend upon there being no
uninitialised bits inside the ggtt_view. To ensure this we add the
__packed attribute and double check with a build on that gcc hasn't
expanded the struct to include some padding bytes.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h
index 5dd3755a5a45..57cbd532dae1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.h
@@ -156,12 +156,22 @@ struct intel_rotation_info {
/* tiles */
unsigned int width, height, stride, offset;
} plane[2];
Isn't packed theoretically needed on the intel_rotation_plane_info name
in the previous patch as well? Otherwise there could be a hole between
the array elements if the structure got changed in the future.
Regards,
Tvrtko
-};
+} __packed;
+
+static inline void assert_intel_rotation_info_is_packed(void)
+{
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct intel_rotation_info) != 8*sizeof(unsigned
int));
+}
struct intel_partial_info {
u64 offset;
unsigned int size;
-};
+} __packed;
+
+static inline void assert_intel_partial_info_is_packed(void)
+{
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct intel_partial_info) != sizeof(u64) +
sizeof(unsigned int));
+}
struct i915_ggtt_view {
enum i915_ggtt_view_type type;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
