On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:58:18PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 12:37:53PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 03:17:44PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > [...] > > [extra_context.size] > > > > I'd rather have the time size_t or __u64 to avoid implicit padding. > > > > Sure, it can be a u64. I wanted to avoid the suggestion that the frame > > should be that large, but 32 bits already allows it to be crazy large > > anyway, so I don't think making it 32-bit helps. > > Actually, there is still implicit padding even with u64, since the total > size is 16 bytes + sizeof(extra_context.size). > > Since u64 is much bigger then we'd ever want, and to avoid introducing > new bugs, do you object to keeping size as u32 and adding explicit > padding instead? I missed the extra padding to 16-byte alignment. In this case, I'm fine with u32. -- Catalin
