From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
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 16:11:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140801141146.GB1913@ulmo.nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140801140928.GE21624@htj.dyndns.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1923 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:09:28AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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).
Oh well, as you wish, then.
Thierry
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-01 14:11 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
2014-08-01 14:11 ` Thierry Reding [this message]
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=20140801141146.GB1913@ulmo.nvidia.com \
--to=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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