> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kitszel, Przemyslaw <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 5:58 AM
> To: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>; Keller, Jacob E
> <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Anthony L <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Wenjun Wu
> <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next] virtchnl: fix m68k build.
> 
> On 10/17/24 08:39, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On 10/17/24 00:49, Jacob Keller wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2024 6:56 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> >>> The kernel test robot reported a build failure on m68k in the intel
> >>> driver due to the recent shapers-related changes.
> >>>
> >>> The mentioned arch has funny alignment properties, let's be explicit
> >>> about the binary layout expectation introducing a padding field.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 608a5c05c39b ("virtchnl: support queue rate limit and quanta
> >>> size configuration")
> >>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202410131710.71Wt6LKO-
> >>> [email protected]/
> >>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>   include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h | 1 +
> >>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h b/include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h
> >>> index 223e433c39fe..13a11f3c09b8 100644
> >>> --- a/include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/avf/virtchnl.h
> >>> @@ -1499,6 +1499,7 @@ VIRTCHNL_CHECK_STRUCT_LEN(8,
> >>> virtchnl_queue_chunk);
> >>>   struct virtchnl_quanta_cfg {
> >>>       u16 quanta_size;
> >>> +    u16 pad;
> >>>       struct virtchnl_queue_chunk queue_select;
> >>
> >> There's a hidden 2 byte padding because queue_select requires 4-byte
> >> alignment. We assume this, as the VIRTCHNL_CHECK_STRUCT_LEN for this
> >> structure is 12 bytes.
> >>
> >> On mk68k, we must not be adding this padding, which results in a 10 byte
> >> structure, failing the size check for VIRTCHNL_CHECK_STRUCT_LEN,
> >> resulting in the compilation error?
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> >> Adding the explicit size aligns with the actual expected layout and size
> >> for this structure, fixing mk68k without affecting the other
> >> architectures.
> >>
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <[email protected]>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Please LMK if you prefer/agree to have this one applied directly on net-
> > next, to reduce build issues spawning around ASAP.
> >
> > Paolo
> >
> 
> Would be convenient, no objections!

Yes please. I applied it to iwl-next yesterday, but I think its great if you 
can take it immediately

Thanks,
Jake

Reply via email to