Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH 1/1] ccw: ccw payload description

[Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>]

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 ?