Re: [Patch 04/18] include/linux/logfs.h

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Segher Boessenkool wrote:
It would be better if GCC had a 'nopadding' attribute which gave us what
we need without the _extra_ implications about alignment.

That's impossible; removing the padding from a struct
_will_ make accesses to its members unaligned (think
about arrays of that struct).
And many platforms happily support unaligned CPU access in hardware at a price in performance, while other support it in software at great cost in performance. None of that maps into impossible, Some i/o hardware may not support at all and require some bounce buffering, at cost in memory and CPU.

None of that equates with impossible. It is readily argued that it could mean inadvisable on some architectures, slow as government assistance and ugly as the north end of a south-bound hedgehog, but it's not impossible.

Do NOT take this to mean I think it would be a good thing in a Linux kernel, or that it should be added to gcc, but in some use like embedded applications where memory use is an important cost driver, people are probably doing it already by hand to pack struct arrays into minimal bytes. It's neither impossible nor totally useless.

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
 CTO TMR Associates, Inc
 Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux