From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marcelo.leitner@gmail.com Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:14:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 3/4] sctp: add support for generating stream reconf add incoming/outgoing stre Message-Id: <20170123161458.GZ3781@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: References: <20170120163921.GU3781@localhost.localdomain> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DB026B8E0@AcuExch.aculab.com> <20170123123628.GX3781@localhost.localdomain> <20170123.110047.447365739282173577.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20170123.110047.447365739282173577.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Miller Cc: David.Laight@ACULAB.COM, lucien.xin@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, vyasevich@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:00:47AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'" > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:36:28 -0200 > > > So, no padding. A field just after the other, which is what we want on a > > network header. > > It isn't necessary! > > Show me a case where it is required when you use properly fixed sized > types and a proper ordering of the struct members. No padding is > going in there, go and check. > > Do we splatter __packed all over our ipv4/ipv6 header, TCP header, UDP > header, etc. structures? No, we don't because it's totally unecessary. Err, sure, right. > > I will not accept __packed being used unless it is absolutely, provably, > the only way to solve a particular problem. And when that does happen, > I am going to require a huge comment explaining in detail why this is > the case, and why no other approach or solution solved the problem. Would this be a candidate for checkpatch.pl? Marcelo