From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from new3-smtp.messagingengine.com (new3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.229]) (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 696E37C for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 08:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F6C580204; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap51 ([10.202.2.101]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:16:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arndb.de; h=cc :cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1663402584; x=1663406184; bh=1xxytf0620 E/n/S5Ojr6dGHzA3niIQtDL9CbjqVZnY0=; b=eamGSbKh9KybyMHY3JSmdoiuAj fOyOw7ZP6T38xrkPtxRe+PUcWg9gUXKFnI1VSdEyU2yfd+ok3t7EkVAOwXpP/FPn b8tj5tF/cbqeb0+ul00X/p2UPFJlYKUdwp4JuZUpn3wJRkRwQF+A3MXscrGXPVLE C8qrRBBchg/+ujVzUzevgDtBfoA70YhKZSmwA6kqzB0tSicK4D8uNFXy/F+foip9 K9DxVWACyAK8dOhdXCBh2Tq6+diX7Bugz+HCurbKuPlxvRgLUT9B5YiT81dvqS7S B1NYLNtHUbRSHRaiIBGDwkcwwhk/e2QcyfnTujAuM6dS+d8jwQFc31uX01dw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1663402584; x=1663406184; bh=1xxytf0620E/n/S5Ojr6dGHzA3ni IQtDL9CbjqVZnY0=; b=e7jhdtAQJ/5eJYFmJ2mkXAtSYFzYGbf1SdXqfD0OBwlI AtaSO/BWOGgoHByKHh7gsNG3vUn2j/GiY97r3B8A8ywRSVErCFC9c1qLedZkL0QD Kuqik4rn/9/sSc0jK5iocypfukoHH5DvvKHv3LMaqrcLbiuzDHgnmmp/GNzTxeMG NjlSbut2ktoVuDBQfjMRApYn9SwIeRrhlshkZYJYGJXaGweOSMMTcl5r8QVL6uJE MNQLsRnn2hYHzWmgX6hR/HXPMzc23UKjFHU5E9hov3Mafj7mphTnEmLaSbGHP097 glkOyoI14kVFuAutb/C6xsUU7jHw9D/YcK3LzDo8KA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfedvvddgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedftehr nhguuceuvghrghhmrghnnhdfuceorghrnhgusegrrhhnuggsrdguvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepjedugffhgeevlefhledvjedvffetueelteduvdejhffglefgveegfeduieeu hfehnecuffhomhgrihhnpehrvghmrghinhhsrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghrnhgusegrrhhnuggsrdguvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 85750B60086; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 04:16:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-935-ge4ccd4c47b-fm-20220914.001-ge4ccd4c4 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <536e1ed3-5d6b-401e-b8b4-888b49aba6df@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <202209171512.qcgXdSrG-lkp@intel.com> References: <202209171512.qcgXdSrG-lkp@intel.com> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 10:16:03 +0200 From: "Arnd Bergmann" To: "kernel test robot" , "Karsten Graul" Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, kbuild-all@lists.01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: net/smc/smc_llc.c:26:2: warning: field within 'struct smc_llc_hdr' is less aligned than 'union smc_llc_hdr::(anonymous at net/smc/smc_llc.c:26:2)' and is usually due to 'struct smc_llc_hdr' being packed, which can lead to unaligned accesses Content-Type: text/plain On Sat, Sep 17, 2022, at 10:09 AM, kernel test robot wrote: > Hi Karsten, > > FYI, the error/warning still remains. > > >>> net/smc/smc_llc.c:26:2: warning: field within 'struct smc_llc_hdr' is less aligned than 'union smc_llc_hdr::(anonymous at net/smc/smc_llc.c:26:2)' and is usually due to 'struct smc_llc_hdr' being packed, which can lead to unaligned accesses [-Wunaligned-access] > union { > ^ > 1 warning generated. > > > vim +26 net/smc/smc_llc.c > > 23 > 24 struct smc_llc_hdr { > 25 struct smc_wr_rx_hdr common; > > 26 union { > 27 struct { > 28 u8 length; /* 44 */ > 29 #if defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD) > 30 u8 reserved:4, > 31 add_link_rej_rsn:4; > 32 #elif defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD) > 33 u8 add_link_rej_rsn:4, > 34 reserved:4; > 35 #endif > 36 }; > 37 u16 length_v2; /* 44 - 8192*/ > 38 }; > 39 u8 flags; > 40 } __packed; /* format defined in > 41 * IBM Shared Memory Communications Version 2 I think the __packed annotation should be moved to the length_v2 field instead of the outer struct to resolve that. Arnd