[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH 1/1] ccw: ccw payload description
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> writes: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:37:26 +1030 > Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com> writes: >> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:17:17 +0200 >> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:28:00PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> > We'll just have to live with the lack of padding, and let's try not to >> >> > add any more packed-requiring structures. If we deprecate >> >> > virtio-balloon, the rest will be contained in CCW. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Rusty. >> >> >> >> For CCW, how about my idea of adding optional padding explicitly? >> >> In the compatibility section, we can explicitly specify the >> >> the length. >> >> Drivers can use offsetof(padding) and avoid packed attribute. >> > >> > Since Rusty does not like the tables, this looks like a good idea. >> >> Surely making the padding optional makes it more complex, for no real >> gain? It's not that much simpler in practice, is it? >> >> This patch just removes the __attribute__((packed)) where it's useless, >> and notes explicitly where it's required: > > (...) > > Do we want to go the route of this patch now, together with my > clarifications in > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/201401/msg00034.html ? It's not quite a trivial change, and I know there's some debate. So I've created an issue for it (VIRTIO-56), and we can discuss next meeting. Thanks, Rusty.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]