From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Kalle Valo' <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc: 'Martin Blumenstingl' <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"tehuang@realtek.com" <tehuang@realtek.com>,
"s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
"tony0620emma@gmail.com" <tony0620emma@gmail.com>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] rtw88: Add packed attribute to the eFuse structs
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:34:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f75a99604394c47bd646c6a024cb27a@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r0w2fvgz.fsf@kernel.org>
From: Kalle Valo
> Sent: 10 January 2023 12:03
...
> > Most hardware definitions align everything.
> >
> > What you may want to do is add compile-time asserts for the
> > sizes of the structures.
> >
> > Remember that if you have 16/32 bit fields in packed structures
> > on some architectures the compile has to generate code that does
> > byte loads and shifts.
> >
> > The 'misaligned' property is lost when you take the address - so
> > you can easily generate a fault.
> >
> > Adding __packed to a struct is a sledgehammer you really shouldn't need.
>
> Avoiding use of __packed is news to me, but is this really a safe rule?
> Most of the wireless engineers are no compiler experts (myself included)
> so I'm worried. For example, in ath10k and ath11k I try to use __packed
> for all structs which are accessing hardware or firmware just to make
> sure that the compiler is not changing anything.
What may wish to do is get the compiler to generate an error if
it would add any padding - but that isn't what __packed is for
or what it does.
The compiler will only ever add padding to ensure that fields
are correctly aligned (usually a multiple of their size).
There can also be padding at the end of a structure so that arrays
are aligned.
There are some unusual ABI that align all structures on 4 byte
boundaries - but i don't think Linux has any of them.
In any case this rarely matters.
All structures that hardware/firmware access are very likely
to have everything on its natural alignment unless you have a very
old structure hat might have a 16bit aligned 32bit value that
was assumed to be two words.
Now if you have:
struct {
char a[4];
int b;
} __packed foo;
whenever you access foo.b the compiler might have to generate
4 separate byte memory accesses and a load of shift/and/or
instructions in order to avoid a misaligned address trap.
So you don't want to use __packed unless the field is actually
expected to be misaligned.
For most hardware/firmware structures this isn't true.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-10 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-28 13:35 [PATCH 0/4] rtw88: Four fixes found while working on SDIO support Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-28 13:35 ` [PATCH 1/4] rtw88: Add packed attribute to the eFuse structs Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 9:24 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-29 10:37 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 11:35 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-31 16:57 ` David Laight
2023-01-01 11:42 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2023-01-01 11:54 ` David Laight
2023-01-01 13:08 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2023-01-04 15:30 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2023-01-04 15:53 ` David Laight
2023-01-04 16:07 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2023-01-04 16:31 ` David Laight
2023-01-04 17:49 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2023-01-05 0:56 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2023-01-05 8:34 ` David Laight
2023-01-10 12:02 ` Kalle Valo
2023-01-10 12:34 ` David Laight [this message]
2022-12-28 13:35 ` [PATCH 2/4] rtw88: Configure the registers from rtw_bf_assoc() outside the RCU lock Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 9:37 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-28 13:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] rtw88: Use rtw_iterate_vifs() for rtw_vif_watch_dog_iter() Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 9:39 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-28 13:35 ` [PATCH 4/4] rtw88: Use non-atomic rtw_iterate_stas() in rtw_ra_mask_info_update() Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 9:39 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-29 9:26 ` [PATCH 0/4] rtw88: Four fixes found while working on SDIO support Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-29 10:40 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 11:42 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2023-01-10 12:06 ` Kalle Valo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-12-29 12:48 Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 12:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] rtw88: Add packed attribute to the eFuse structs Martin Blumenstingl
2022-12-29 23:47 ` Ping-Ke Shih
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=7f75a99604394c47bd646c6a024cb27a@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=kvalo@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pkshih@realtek.com \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=tehuang@realtek.com \
--cc=tony0620emma@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).