On 16-08-10 14:40:13, David Laight wrote: > From: Linuxppc-dev [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+david.laight=aculab.com at lists.ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of > > > > So given what you have above, you'd use something like: > > > > > > > > struct ima_kexec_hdr { > > > > u16 version; > > > > u16 _reserved0; > > > > u32 _reserved1; > > > > u64 buffer_size; > > > > u64 count; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Thanks, I'll make this change. > > > > I would suggest: > > > > struct ima_kexec_hdr { > > u64 buffer_size; > > u64 count; > > u16 version; > > }; > > > > and let the compiler add the proper padding, depending on the architecture. On > > 32bit machine we'll have 4 bytes smaller allocations (compared to 64bit) while > > retaining the same functionality. > > AAAArrrrgggg..... > > That doesn't work for 32bit applications on 64bit hosts. Which part won't work? > The extra bytes will make 0 difference to the allocation cost and lots to the > processing. An example? Petko
