On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:00:47AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: "'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'" <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:36:28 -0200 > > > So, no padding. A field just after the other, which is what we want on a > > network header. > > It isn't necessary! > > Show me a case where it is required when you use properly fixed sized > types and a proper ordering of the struct members. No padding is > going in there, go and check. > > Do we splatter __packed all over our ipv4/ipv6 header, TCP header, UDP > header, etc. structures? No, we don't because it's totally unecessary.
Err, sure, right. > > I will not accept __packed being used unless it is absolutely, provably, > the only way to solve a particular problem. And when that does happen, > I am going to require a huge comment explaining in detail why this is > the case, and why no other approach or solution solved the problem. Would this be a candidate for checkpatch.pl? Marcelo
