On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 04:24:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, July 1, 2016 3:14:47 PM CEST Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused. Why are we butchering the old pci_alloc_host_bridge() function
> > to then go back and add re-add it in a different form?
>
> Good point, we could just keep the existing implementation and make it
> an exported function without the bus argument.
>
> > The old pci_alloc_host_bridge() was doing mostly what the above
> > function does minus the bridge->private line. And the &bridge[1] construct
> > could very well be pointing to the next struct pci_host_bridge aligned address,
> > which means parts of priv area are ignored.
>
> I don't know what you mean with that. Would you rather write this as?
>
> bridge->private = bridge + 1;
>
> or leave it out and add a helper function
>
> void *pci_host_bridge_private(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> {
> return &bridge[1];
> }
none of the above
>
> or do you mean we should have extra alignment in there so the
> private pointer has a minimum alignment higher than the
> alignment of struct pci_host_bridge?
but this ^. bridge pointer arithmetic means +1 is not necessarily +sizeof(struct pci_host_bridge)
bytes. AFAIK that can be rounded to the nearest natural alignment for pointers on that
architecture.
>
> I'm absolutely fine with any of those suggestions, whichever
> makes the nicest API.
Does anyone need to subclass the pci_host_bridge structure? And is appending data right
after the structure useful?
Best regards,
Liviu
>
> Arnd
>
--
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world, |
| but they're not |
| giving me the |
\ source code! /
---------------
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
