From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net (004.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A93523FC41; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758659334; cv=none; b=K5QWablJVGvnmLnZuukWHVK7anD15aGvTXb+xqaBjN2z9JafYbKh49bZGkIAOBkN7xVKl+gnBYYRtQ2KQxZZV/Cbz70pNK1lqYNsH8FX6LCWFYDsRxs1nSj0u9qCgNcxfTkNXn174OPove2E8kG+2pH5KcT/1F3Us2TBYJJxuHc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758659334; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yiU63abRGWfLpfyD9YYpbjz/dDx3dhleRdL4nlw520U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Va6zRNfj7YRg0hDXcqCG3orCdyKXzU7eC5GGcgfVEYFCq/7+kwgMltRMx6t1CR0qIJo/Fw3GreqzLW/qLda154W0YD6BUq/ogC7sqNI04lsyWRYynJORRzK15B2FsqUY2YkbMbzLaXoTjcr96971zCQ5yRSeaIN8FFdhwS3E2cU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=OeZpZFjY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="OeZpZFjY" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4cWWlm1prSzm0yTk; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:28:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1758659330; x=1761251331; bh=ufOlNyaaTNIiVqgbAZ42UXrc fDNI/I8viZfGBTgBA0E=; b=OeZpZFjY7qrsCfCCsm/QdYWhQqrXLV+WQTGZdv3f Mb4/2aSnk9RvVesMDGal62TI8yVDojzwcoPOq/g54RscmIDwrAQxhRgY7PjcBMW2 SE26/OxwFTbNaGYa2eHbiRYUInigicYzYn/CazVp2xV+a/WVENixL9A9pHelwMM0 Uq6xGrxSXigxTuEdASK94LRcZFCgXMRnyu5MCMDzB8OeFRDVBYSC+25xrCY61VDO WhftRmwd0xLaPw0DqUmMmaw1a82OMYJ/btQZICmx815oEeD+iIaSHu334ugRlBUP fUAXM3d02Mnyd3CH82F+NuKCJVzMSDdOIkdjuscL7sI0oA== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 004.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (004.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id b9k100kL-Z7a; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:28:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.119.48.131] (unknown [104.135.180.219]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 004.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4cWWlZ3Fjmzm0yVJ; Tue, 23 Sep 2025 20:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 13:28:40 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] rpmb: move rpmb_frame struct and constants to common header To: Bean Huo , avri.altman@wdc.com, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, can.guo@oss.qualcomm.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, beanhuo@micron.com, jens.wiklander@linaro.org Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20250923153906.1751813-1-beanhuo@iokpp.de> <20250923153906.1751813-2-beanhuo@iokpp.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20250923153906.1751813-2-beanhuo@iokpp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/23/25 8:39 AM, Bean Huo wrote: > +struct rpmb_frame { > + u8 stuff[196]; > + u8 key_mac[32]; > + u8 data[256]; > + u8 nonce[16]; > + __be32 write_counter __packed; > + __be16 addr __packed; > + __be16 block_count __packed; > + __be16 result __packed; > + __be16 req_resp __packed; > +}; I think that it is safe to remove __packed from the above structure members since the size of the first four members is a multiple of four (196 + 32 + 256 + 16) and that is sufficient not to introduce any gaps between the __be* members. Thanks, Bart.