Re: "Wire" definitions and __packed

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:08:30PM +0000, Paul.Koning%dell.com@localhost wrote:
> Still, though, the original comment is largely valid: you can't do
> meaningful testing of changes that affect alignment on an x86 system,
> because for the most part it doesn't care.  (The same goes for various
> other CISC machines such as VAX.)  Also, structure padding is different
> for x86 than for most RISC machines.

Can we please the keep the amount of generic wisdom injection down,
please? Roy is quite aware that x86 is not strict alignment. As I said
in my initial mail, the proposed changes have a chance of exposing
incorrect alignment assumptions in the kernel. Some of them will be
properly detected at build time, some will only be found due to testing.
Padding differences are irrelevant since I explicitly said that size
assertions are going to be kept. Random general remarks do nothing to
improve the situation.

Joerg