From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.brecis.com ([64.168.228.202]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17mbwM-0001gw-00 for ; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:19:35 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:17:06 -0500 From: Steve Wahl To: Jasmine Strong Cc: Allen Curtis , David Woodhouse , John Hall , "Linux MTD list (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Stable cvs version for 2.4 Message-ID: <20020904101706.D23398@brecis.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from jasmine@hex.linuxgrrls.org on Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:54:03PM +0100 Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Jasmine Strong wrote: > > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Allen Curtis wrote: > > > How about we add 1 byte which contains up to 8 bit fields? > > Adding a byte will destroy the alignment. you'd have to add a whole word. > > We could have a #define to set whether we use the lsb of the address (on > aligned architectures) or an extra byte (on non-aligned architectures, > which won't care about the structure not being an exact multiple of words > anyway). My $0.02 is: The #define is a good suggestion. But the assumption that using the lsb of the pointer will only break on archetectures that don't care about alignment may be a bad one. I haven't looked at the code (shame on me...), but I thought I heard the word "tree" mentioned. :-) If this data structure is being used for speed, I have to ask if the extra masking instructions are a good trade off for the memory saved? --> Steve