On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2010-12-15, at 02:49, Al Viro wrote: > > Incorrect. See 6.2.6.1 in C99; basically, padding bytes have unspecified > > contents. Implementation is allowed to leave them in any state > > (including not bothering to copy them when doing struct assignments, > > etc.). See Appendix J (portability issues) as well. > > > > The bottom line: if you rely on that, you are relying on non-portable > > details of compiler behaviour. Moreover, the authors are not even > > required to document what they are doing or to keep that behaviour > > consistent. > > I thought my proposed solution was reasonable - add explicit padding fields where there are holes in the structure, which would be unused by the kernel, but since they are defined fields the compiler is obligated to initialize them. Is the presence of holes always apparent at the source code level? Or is it dependent on the compiler or target architecture? julia > This wouldn't add any overhead in cases where the compiler is already initializing the fields, and is still going to be less overhead than doing a memset(0) on the whole structure, and then initializing the other fields explicitly. > > That has the added bonus that it becomes instantly clear where there are padding fields in the structure, and possibly they can be put to use in the future. > > Cheers, Andreas > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
