From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-oi0-f45.google.com ([209.85.218.45]:35334 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S965615AbdEZIBa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 26 May 2017 04:01:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170526060843.GA4446@wunner.de>
References: <20170506090755.GB19740@wunner.de> <CAKv+Gu_4xHhX8oK847k8=s5S7Mx3sALPTtX8Eo=2+9uZyQoEAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170510084143.GA16261@wunner.de> <CAKv+Gu81gvNL1jkb3T35=-5fr_x-BmSg9X2CcQ97xv5JTZ-c1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170525123047.GA4172@wunner.de> <CAKv+Gu_3vYKGOrzC8+Y3QwXOtV8Tbm8HC7nzQCdKVB1Qbdoriw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170525124445.GA4181@wunner.de> <CAKv+Gu-7dr=upMcs2SsE+7+LRA2q82=exDrtt6CMniiMjZU2YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170525125650.GA4196@wunner.de> <CAKv+Gu_==Q5L+w2ihZ6u-=_AKZJun8D=sUWhgx6Pvzt-K99fTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170526060843.GA4446@wunner.de>
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 10:01:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0YthR69OFGzVqsPoGv3UEGFA9jnedubwQtZj-v0LzQQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi/cper: Fix endianness of PCI class code
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-pci.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:07:35AM -0700, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 25 May 2017 at 05:56, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:

>> >> Or does 'guarantee' mean 'I tested it and it works'?
>> >
>> > I tested it with x86_64 (le) and ppc32 (be) and it works.
>> > I don't have an aarch64 machine available here.
>> >
>>
>> Good.
>
> Good to merge then?

Please remove the bit fields and find a way to do the patch without them.
We really don't want any bitfields in structures that are interpreted by
hardware: The rules for struct packing are hard enough to understand
without bitfields, so please don't give any bad examples even if you have
proved from the C99 spec that your specific case is ok (which so far
you have refused to do).

      Arnd