From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17mcLe-0001n2-00 for ; Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:45:42 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Jasmine Strong Cc: Allen Curtis , John Hall , "Linux MTD list (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Stable cvs version for 2.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 16:44:48 +0100 Message-ID: <9941.1031154288@redhat.com> 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: jasmine@hex.linuxgrrls.org said: > > > Adding a byte will destroy the alignment. you'd have to add a whole > > > word. > > Er, what alignment? > The alignment of the structure. Either it's a whole multiple of > words or it isn't. Sorry, I was making the unstated assumption that we would have a #define and add the byte only in the case where it was required because the allocator would _already_ be giving us unaligned structures. So we never need to add a word instead of a byte to preserve the alignment, because in the case where the alignment needs preserving, we didn't need to add the byte in the first place. (And now I'm making the assumption that "aligned structures" == "pointers without the low bit set", but that's not unreasonable in the real world.) But anyway, having seen that it's not as huge a saving as I thought, and having seen that I can probably save the 4 bytes of 'size' with less pain, I may not bother with it at all for a while. -- dwmw2