On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 19:57 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Dec 2013, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-12-30 at 20:58 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > Is there any way we could catch (sparse, or some other script?) that
> > > > > struct reorganising won't break the condition needed ("within a
> > > > > structure that contains at least two more bytes")?
> > > >
> > > > What kind of reorganizing could happen? Do you mean that the programmer
> > > > might do at some time in the future, or something the compiler might do?
> > >
> > > I'm just thinking of a programmer, e.g. changing a struct like this:
> > >
> > > struct foo {
> > > u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
> > > - u16 dummy;
> > > };
> > >
> > > for example.
> >
> > That is easily resolved by:
> >
> > struct foo {
> > u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
> > u16 required_padding; /* do not remove upon pain of death */
> > };
>
> That'd be a stupid waste of struct space. If anything, there should be
> *only* a comment saying that at least two bytes are needed - I'd still
> prefer an automated check.
>
Frankly I am not sure I like the patch. This flow is not a fast path
at all. While I don't really care for the waste in iwlwifi (because
there isn't), I don't see the real point is make the code more
sensitive to changes to earn basically nothing.
This flow happens only upon association which means a few times an hour maybe...
The only advantage I see here is that people like me who don't always
have a chance to read / write much code outside their little tiny
boring driver get to know about this kind of things. So, from an
educational point of view - this is cool.
But education is one thing, and the code is another.
--
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
