On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:05:19PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > wt., 10 gru 2019 o 18:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > > > > On a different note: why would endianness be an issue here? 32-bit > > > variables with 64-bit alignment should still be in the same place in > > > memory, right? > > > > With explicit padding, yes. > > > > > Any reason not to use __packed for this structure and not deal with > > > this whole compat mess? > > > > Have been suggested that explicit padding is better approach. > > (See my answer to Kent) > > > > > I also noticed that my change will only allow user-space to read one > > > event at a time which seems to be a regression with regard to the > > > current implementation. I probably need to address this too. > > > > Yes, but we have to have ABI v2 in place. > > Hi Andy, > > I was playing with some ideas for the new ABI and noticed that on > 64-bit architecture the size of struct gpiochip_info is reported to be > 68 bytes, not 72 as I would expect. Is implicit alignment padding not > applied to a struct if there's a non-64bit-aligned 32-bit field at the > end of it? Is there something I'm missing here? > Struct alignment is based on the size of the largest element. The largest element of struct gpiopchip_info is a __u32, so the struct gets 32-bit alignment, even on 64-bit. The structs with the problems all contain a __u64, and so get padded out to a 64-bit boundary. Cheers, Kent.