From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: jbenc@redhat.com Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 9aecb9dc for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 2079445e for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 11:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:26:50 +0100 From: Jiri Benc To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Subject: Re: Misalignment, MIPS, and ip_hdr(skb)->version Message-ID: <20161209122650.36a1a8e8@griffin> In-Reply-To: <87vauvhwdu.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> References: <095cac5b-b757-6f4a-e699-8eedf9ed7221@stressinduktion.org> <87vauvhwdu.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Netdev , LKML , Hannes Frederic Sowa , WireGuard mailing list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 23:34:21 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > fwiw, i'm not convinced that "most protocols of the IETF follow this > mantra". we've had multiple discussions in different protocol groups > about shaving or bloating by a few bytes here or there in different > protocols, and i don't think anyone has brought up memory alignment as > an argument in any of the discussions i've followed. Which is sad. One would expect that this would be well understood for decades already. Jiri