From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Hogan Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: staging: lustre: lustre: include: add "__attribute__((packed))" for the related union Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:22:04 +0000 Message-ID: <52EF6DCC.6040807@imgtec.com> References: <20140118142404.GT7444@mwanda> <52DBA3D4.3090308@gmail.com> <52DD0EFF.2010305@imgtec.com> <20140120123045.GV7444@mwanda> <52DD18A5.1090308@imgtec.com> <20140120125603.GD4815@mwanda> <20140120211356.GG4815@mwanda> <52DE4DA3.7090301@imgtec.com> <52E3A642.7010307@gmail.com> <52ECFD53.7010401@gmail.com> <20140203085855.GA26722@mwanda> <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6B772B@AcuExch.aculab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "andreas.dilger@intel.com" , Chen Gang , Greg KH , "bergwolf@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-metag@vger.kernel.org" , "oleg.drokin@intel.com" , "jacques-charles.lafoucriere@cea.fr" , Antonio Quartulli , netdev , "jinshan.xiong@intel.com" , David Miller , 'Dan Carpenter' To: David Laight Return-path: In-Reply-To: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6B772B@AcuExch.aculab.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 03/02/14 10:05, David Laight wrote: > From: Dan Carpenter >> On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 09:57:39PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>> It seems, our kernel still stick to treate 'pack' region have effect >>> with both 'align' and 'sizeof'. >> >> It's not about packed regions. It's about unions. It's saying the >> sizeof() a union is a multiple of 4 unless it's packed. >> >> union foo { >> short x; >> short y; >> }; >> >> The author intended the sizeof(union foo) to be 2 but on metag arch then >> it is 4. > > The same is probably be true of: struct foo { _u16 bar; }; Yes indeed. > Architectures that define such alignment rules are a right PITA. > You either need to get the size to 2 without using 'packed', or > just not define such structures. > It is worth seeing if adding aligned(2) will change the size - I'm > not sure. __aligned(2) alone doesn't seem to have any effect on sizeof() or __alignof__() unless it is accompanied by __packed. x86_64 is similar in that respect (it just packs sanely in the first place). Combining __packed with __aligned(2) does the trick though (__packed alone sets __aligned(1) which is obviously going to be suboptimal). Cheers James