On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:16 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >> From: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> >> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:20:25 -0700 >> >>> I looked through the struct definition and I think that the idea of >>> manually padding as Geert did in his patch will be difficult to >>> maintain over time (and actually there are a few that he missed) since >>> there are a number of different structs/unions contained in there. >> >> You have to be mindful of the gaps and wasted space for performance >> reasons anyways. > > Yes, although the approaches for performance and correctness are not > necessarily the same. For example, we're taking about potentially > packing the struct, in which case we would still have the same > alignment needs even without any gaps. If the correctness is clearly > handled (through an explicit align and build assert) then it's easier > to pack/rearrange/whatever for performance since the whole thing isn't > fragile.
I'd like to get this build failure fixed soon, so I'll just send out a minimal fix that seems best to me in a couple of minutes. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
