lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: weird padding in linux/timex.h, struct timex
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:36:04PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 12:15, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > struct timex in include/linux/timex.h is defined as
> >
> > struct timex
> > {
> > ...
> > int :32; int :32; int :32; int :32;
> > int :32; int :32; int :32; int :32;
> > int :32; int :32; int :32; int :32;
> > };
> >
> > I assume that this is used as padding. Is there any reason for using
> > bitfields as padding? If there is, a comment to that effect would be
> > nice. If there isn't, the following patch makes the padding explicit.
> >
>
> That is how the interface has always been defined. I think we inherited
> that from the world of xntpd but I may be wrong. Your __pad is not
> always the same thing - you assume 4 byte ints and ints aligned the same
> way as char [], which may not always be true.

I assume 4 byte ints, because I assume that the length of a 32 bit
bitfield will be 32 bits. As for alignment, you're correct.

I guess my question becomes: is the original code defined in any
special way, in regards to padding and size? If it isn't, my __pad
patch would be cleaner and just as correct in principle. If it is, I
can make a __pad which will behave exactly the same way.

Thanks, Muli.
--
I am PINK, hear me ROAR

http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~mulix/
http://syscalltrack.sf.net/
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.024 / U:1.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site