>>> Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> 03/27/17 10:54 PM >>> >On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 24.03.17 at 19:31, <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: >> > +/* >> > + * See docs/misc/9pfs.markdown in xen.git for the full specification: >> > + * https://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/9pfs.html >> > + */ >> > +#pragma pack(push) >> > +#pragma pack(1) >> > +struct xen_9pfs_header { >> > + uint32_t size; >> > + uint8_t id; >> > + uint16_t tag; >> > +}; >> > +#pragma pack(pop) >> >> There's no precedent to using pragmas in the public headers, and >> these aren't C99-compliant. > >I'll remove pragma, together with the definition of struct >xen_9pfs_header: this structure is already defined as part of the 9p >protocol, and it is already mentioned in the Xen 9pfs transport spec as >well. In fact, both QEMU and Linux already have it defined. I don't >think we need it here.
That'll deal with the immediate issue here, but not with the more general implied one: Why would you want to have misaligned fields in a protocol definition? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
