On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > We don't fall into any of these cases, and therefore as you say, we > > don't need packed. Arnd and I have both explained this. So why do you > > keep arguing that we do need it? > > Please show me where I keep arguing that you need it? Not explicitly perhaps. But you did write: > Doesn't mean that because it used to work that it is strictly correct. > Wouldn't be the first time that a GCC upgrade broke the kernel because > the kernel wasn't describing things properly enough. which strongly implies that "packed" is needed. You also wrote: > Yes, but that's a consequence of not being able to access those fields > in their naturally aligned position anymore. Hence the addition of the > align attribute to tell the compiler that we know that the structure is > still aligned to a certain degree letting the compiler to avoid > byte-oriented instructions when possible. which is predicated on the assumption that "packed" is needed. Alan Stern -- 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
