Hi David, >> I also see a lot of code through the kernel using pack(1) for the exact > same >> reason - declare hw sensitive structures and eliminate any unexpected > holes. > > Your resistence to this feedback is becomming irritating.
Please don't take this as a resistance, thats a first time we pushing hw aligned bit structures in driver. Trying to understand the best practices here and the history behind the pack(1) backsides. > Just because something is used elsewhere doesn't mean you are open to > do the same, there is a lot of code where issues like this have not > been caught through reivew and the code still ended up in the tree. > > Using packed arbitrarily is being lazy and will result in suboptimal > code generation on several platforms. > > Fixed sized types have well defined padding on _all_ cpus and targets, > so if you use them properly and pad up your structures, there is > absolutely _nothing_ to worry about. > > When I was very active writing hardware drivers with many HW defined > structures and whatnot, I never once considered packed. It never even > crossed my mind, because I simply defined the data structure properly > with well defined fixed sized types and padded them out as necessary. > > So please stop pushing back on this feedback and get rid of the packed > attribute. Surely, already doing a rework. Jakub, thanks for your feedback as well. Regards, Igor
