On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 02:26:17PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:40:29AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...
> > > The changes to serial_rs485 struct were test built with a few traps to
> > > detect mislayouting on archs lkp/0day builts for (all went fine):
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(((&rs485.delay_rts_after_send) + 1) != &rs485.padding[0]);
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(&rs485.padding[1] != &rs485.padding1[0]);
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(rs485) != ((u8 *)(&rs485.padding[4]) -
> > > ((u8 *)&rs485.flags) + sizeof(__u32)));
> >
> > You may add static_asserts() for the above mentioned cases.
>
> I'll add into the end of serial_core.h but in a cleaned up form
> using offsetof(). Those above look rather ugly :-).
Agree!
...
> > > - __u32 padding[5]; /* Memory is cheap, new structs
> > > - are a royal PITA .. */
> > > + union {
> > > + /* v1 */
> > > + __u32 padding[5]; /* Memory is cheap, new structs are a pain */
> > > +
> > > + /* v2 (adds addressing mode fields) */
> >
> > How user space will inform a kernel that it's trying v2?
> >
> > Usually when we have a union, it should be accompanied with the enum or version
> > or something to tell which part of it is in use. I can imagine that in this case
> > it's implied by the IOCTL parameters that never should be used on a garbage.
> >
> > Either add a commit message / UAPI comment or add a version field or ...?
> >
> > > + struct {
> > > + __u8 addr_recv;
> > > + __u8 addr_dest;
>
> The flags in .flags indicate when these two new fields are in use. Do you
> think I need something beyond that. Maybe I should remove those comments
> so they don't mislead you to think it's a "version" for real?
Yes, either drop this versioning, or replace with a comment on top of a union
like:
/* The fields are defined by flags */
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
