This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgOn Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:51:54AM +0700, Vadim Yanitskiy wrote: > we seem to have problems with structure alignment in the new version of > the PCUIF protocol: > > PCUIFv9: sizeof(struct gsm_pcu_if) -> 212; 212 % 4 == 0 > PCUIFv10: sizeof(struct gsm_pcu_if) -> 1006; 1006 % 4 != 0 the total size of the struct doesn't really matter that much. > > I think we would need to add/remove some padding. The question is > whether we should make sure that all structures are aligned, or having > the top level struct gsm_pcu_if aligned would be enough? I think what is important is that the individual fields / members are aligned at the natural alignment boundary of the most common architectures (so, let's say to DWORD boundary). Of course, for an uint8_t it may not be as relevant as for an unaligned uint32_t in the middle of a struct. Otherwise each access to a member will cause unaligned accesses, which may be more expensive depending on your architecture. Even though ARMV7 suppors unaligned loads/stores, they are apparently still slower than aligned ones. For an INFO_IND that doesn't matter, but for primitives/message we exchange at high frequency it may matter. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)