On Thursday 16 June 2011 22:10:53 Alexander Holler wrote: > Using packed doesn't seem to be necessary (at least not with those > versions of gcc I'm using here), I've tried both versions (on arm, > without packed and with packed, aligned(4)) and both are working. I've > only posted the patch because I found the usage of packed, aligned(4) > much clearer than without packed. And It might help avoiding such > discussions like this with people like me who aren't that deep involved > in gcc-specific implementation details. ;) > > Anyway, feel free to nack that patch. I don't really care and just > thought I should post it (e.g. as an alternative to removing that packed). At least I would be happier without the patch. I'm trying to convince people to not use these attributes unless required because too much harm is done when they are used without understanding the full consequences. I also recommend using __packed as localized as possible, i.e. set it for the members that need it, not the entire struct. I agree that your patch is harmless, it's just the opposite of a cleanup in my opinion. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
