On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 10:44 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, all.
Tejun,
I have comments about definition of macro ata_link_for_each_dev(dev,
link) and struct ata_port{};.
In the definition of struct ata_port{}, there's
......
struct ata_link link;
struct ata_device __dev1;
......
Then macro ata_link_for_each_dev() assumes that the field 'device' in
struct ata_link is adjacent to field '__dev1' in struct ata_port.
I think this assumption is not correct in theory. Because the alignment
may make these two fields not adjacent in memory.
Although we haven't found the problem so far, it's very dangerous to
have such assumption in the code.
Does this make sense to you?
Thanks,
Forrest
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
