From: Xiaofei Tan
Sent: 27 March 2021 07:46
Replace __attribute__((packed)) by __packed following the
advice of checkpatch.pl.
Signed-off-by: Xiaofei Tan <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/acpi_fpdt.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_fpdt.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_fpdt.c
index a89a806..690a88a 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_fpdt.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_fpdt.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ struct resume_performance_record {
u32 resume_count;
u64 resume_prev;
u64 resume_avg;
-} __attribute__((packed));
+} __packed;
struct boot_performance_record {
struct fpdt_record_header header;
@@ -63,13 +63,13 @@ struct boot_performance_record {
u64 bootloader_launch;
u64 exitbootservice_start;
u64 exitbootservice_end;
-} __attribute__((packed));
+} __packed;
struct suspend_performance_record {
struct fpdt_record_header header;
u64 suspend_start;
u64 suspend_end;
-} __attribute__((packed));
+} __packed;
My standard question about 'packed' is whether it is actually needed.
It should only be used if the structures might be misaligned in memory.
If the only problem is that a 64bit item needs to be 32bit aligned
then a suitable type should be used for those specific fields.
Those all look very dubious - the standard header isn't packed
so everything must eb assumed to be at least 32bit aligned.
There are also other sub-structures that contain 64bit values.
These don't contain padding - but that requires 64bit alignement.
The only problematic structure is the last one - which would have
a 32bit pad after the header.
Is this even right given than there are explicit alignment pads
in some of the other structures.
If 64bit alignment isn't guaranteed then a '64bit aligned to 32bit'
type should be used for the u64 fields.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
.