From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: Introduce new 10GbE driver for Intel 82598 based PCI Express adapters... Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:08:22 -0400 Message-ID: <46897756.1000005@garzik.org> References: <4688F512.3030801@garzik.org> <20070702140958.5ea6571a@freepuppy.localdomain.hemminger.net> <20070702214238.GA7085@infradead.org> <46897611.9020207@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Stephen Hemminger , "Veeraiyan, Ayyappan" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:54847 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757483AbXGBWIa (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:08:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46897611.9020207@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Kok, Auke wrote: > I suppose I can fix those, but I really don't understand what all the > fuzz is about here. We're only conserving memory and staying far away > from the real risks of bitmasks, so forgive me if I don't grasp the > problem. Be it machine ints or bitfields, you're not conserving memory. Think about struct padding. As to the overall question, I already posted a long list of problems with bitfields. Shall I repeat? Jeff