From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 29 19:00:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0299599; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36BA328F8; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tom.home (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r6TJ03MF075661; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:00:03 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 kib.kiev.ua r6TJ03MF075661 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r6TJ03UL075657; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:00:03 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:00:03 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Warner Losh Subject: Re: My WLI-UC-GNM up crash Message-ID: <20130729190003.GP4972@kib.kiev.ua> References: <3571E4A7-D153-448E-A234-302C9C5603E9@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9DptZICXTlJ7FQ09" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3571E4A7-D153-448E-A234-302C9C5603E9@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on tom.home Cc: freebsd-arm , freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org, Hans Petter Selasky X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:00:13 -0000 --9DptZICXTlJ7FQ09 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:34:00PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > On Jul 29, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >=20 > > The aligned will make sure that the structure gets padded properly to t= he size specified. Only on ARM/MIPS etc, structures get automatically align= ed according to the element in the structure requiring the greatest alignme= nt. >=20 > I'd turn this around and say only on x86 do structures not get aligned th= is way. On any riscy architecture, unaligned accesses are expensive, which = is why the ABI there mandates this. >=20 The alignment of the structure to the largest alignment of the member is required by the ABIs on i386 and amd64 as well. --9DptZICXTlJ7FQ09 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR9ruyAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1B2OUQAKYEH7zcCVXK+9U4FBXwJHJc qvtKSL3WGoevcYmf3YWSJ0nlQahEv5eP+q5VHQXdoKykHzhhVhNuKAOSZ3Eyv6Lj Pr/05y0f6uiF9lrbDDjv7g2+dqBP+oWFkLl5bmRESyAaivEtDmn9ST3Xun+YUyEA Qqxg4ye/fU83juWIHPifY6VHp/BZ7TqSIn9HGWXu38Rdi7QkZFgXrWXmWrKJ+59X IvmUdT6UF0BxGiqnYrKRMxKEHYHeNbU+MgUL1r+6AuzT2yG8rMaONm1UADjvMm6d jq77QSc20W1sbm5pYv1ZnwUi3QgttywDJqIXOB8o4J04XUt6fybVnubCHr1PzrHL TKV038Zc5EUZBhfEZQDdUvrJf38VRNr2AFdjgqMRu//Wz9KPTCmvxKPLMsL+DEPL y+qXcY3VCyYtbnE5aJIg5bW1LvSAjbXVUzMFho0AZlChIrXxG0VBwR0guPVITzBu A6/XBAd6idMlz4Umg8QffXkaQv0rU23EZXoAo7J7IJsUqPb+Z04lC4S0/dohqFJW kvYvSHBc210d3ufmQoUY/5gpH4Be+cOgW4xnbLL73LkH+GhywyY4Cg+cbwuKd6kl QhW3rzFs7TTMn0a9hILTOxAmooDu3S93EqSQ4+lGTrHTD4TEdjDq/9PbXPsb6WP6 CQTfviFDirW97Cnp9Xx0 =Rrlz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --9DptZICXTlJ7FQ09--