From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 16 09:04:26 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3C116A403; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:04:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE75943D95; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:04:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id kAG94KOl038416; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:04:20 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id kAG94CoH038412; Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:04:12 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:04:12 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20061116090412.GB37133@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <3801.1163410519@critter.freebsd.dk> <20061113214928.P76443@delplex.bde.org> <20061113.101958.-861030824.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061113.101958.-861030824.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au, jkoshy@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include ar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 09:04:26 -0000 On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:19:58AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > : BTW, you are responsible for the __packed in . Please remove > : it. The __CTASSERT() is enough to detect if heroic packing is ever needed. > : The only danger is if something has grown to depend on __packed reducing > : alignment as a side effect. E.g., suppose we had a byte string containing > : a bytewise copy of a struct ip. If the copy might be misaligned, then it > : should be copied to an actual struct ip before accessing it as a struct, > : but code that accesses it directly using ((struct ip *)&bs[N]) would work > : now due to the reduced alignment. Places that really need __packed should > : probably use __aligned() to restore the natural alignment. > > DO NOT REMOVE IT. IT IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FOR ARM TO WORK RIGHT. > If you want to remove it, then you must make sure arm works right > after it because I'll add it back. Many years ago I was taught that comments in code could help to avoid such clashes in software development. Is this true no more? ;-) -- Yar