On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Ivan Kokshaysky wrote:Adding an alignment field should be a non-issue: the size of this structure is not likely to be a big deal (yeah, we have something like 12 of them in each PCI device etc, so smaller is better, but it's still not going to be something anybody really notices). And yeah, it might be nice to have "size" instead of "end", but the real problem with that one is actually that on 32-bit (without the 64-bit resource configuration) we want it to be "size-1" in order to be able to fit a whole 0-0xffffffff resource into a resource. And *that* would be really ugly with "size": at least right now it makes a certain amount of sense with "end" pointing to the last entry. So while I can understand your wish for "start+len" rather than "start+end", I don't think it's really practical. Linus --
| James Bruce | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Josip Rodin | bnx2_poll panicking kernel |
