From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: "Antoine Ténart" <antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: libahci: Make host flags unsigned long
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:09:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140801140928.GE21624@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140801140121.GB373@ulmo.nvidia.com>
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 04:01:23PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> I think there's just one occurrence. Turning the flags into an unsigned
> long seems like a much more natural thing to do, though Besides it being
> what many other parts of the kernel use for flags it gives us natural
> alignment within struct ahci_host_priv. The structure currently looks
> like this:
>
> struct ahci_host_priv {
> unsigned int flags;
> u32 force_port_map;
> u32 mask_port_map;
>
> void __iomem *mmio;
> ...
> };
>
> On 64-bit that unsigned int will be 32-bit and cause additional padding
> to be inserted between mask_port_map and mmio to align the 64-bit
> pointer.
>
> It's not like the alignment is that *hugely* important, but it's still,
> you know, pretty.
I don't get how that's pretty. Sure, that space is consumed by
something on 64bit archs but the extra space consumed can't be
utilized unless we're gonna change how we use flags depending on the
bitness of the architecture. You're saying that rather than leaving
unused space as unused it's better to commit that space to a variable
which can't make use of that extra space anyway. What if we later
wanna add another int there? Do we make that int a long too or modify
the complete unrelated ->flags back to int?
Prettiness is a good thing but code fundamentally should match what
the underlying requirement dictates it to. We sure have to trade that
off too at times when the benefit gained is worthwhile, but I
completely fail to see how this feel-good packed prettiness is
anything worthwhile.
In general, please don't do things like this in the kernel. Use ulong
for flags iff it's necessary (atomic bitops).
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-01 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-01 11:39 [PATCH] ata: libahci: Make host flags unsigned long Thierry Reding
2014-08-01 12:52 ` Tejun Heo
2014-08-01 14:01 ` Thierry Reding
2014-08-01 14:09 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2014-08-01 14:11 ` Thierry Reding
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140801140928.GE21624@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox