On 08/03/2012 11:48 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I forgot to comment on that one, sorry.
>>
>> If we put hash entries after struct hash_table we don't take the
>> bits field size into account, or did I miss something?
>
> So, if you do the following,
>
> struct {
> struct {
> int i;
> long ar[];
> } B;
> long __ar_storage[32];
> } A;
struct A should have been an union, right?
> It should always be safe to dereference A.B.ar[31]. I'm not sure
> whether this is something guaranteed by C tho. Maybe compilers are
> allowed to put members in reverse order but I think we already depend
> on the above.
why is accessing A.B.ar[31] safe?
__ar_storage is only 32*sizeof(long) bytes long, while struct B would need to
be 32*sizeof(long) + sizeof(int) bytes long so that A.B.ar[31] access would be
safe.
> Thanks.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
