From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62165C4338F for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360E360EFE for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 05:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230017AbhHSFfL (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 01:35:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60058 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229804AbhHSFfK (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Aug 2021 01:35:10 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C32C061756 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 22:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id v2so6897170edq.10 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 22:34:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XzBtTyUuZAZ36Cvu3BHXUN5QOP1AlqjuoYzkcck7J1A=; b=YaLJ+ZaUmHM3LQ2Pl6U11IaU1qu9qqCJf5sCiVrZ98oAsu79x+O415kgpEy1un6i1I NVSa6wDxZgaBUI0Cuh6NOzHTN4mAS5inXiC6lj5BF2uZ2lR8AyJgdoHZtfin3xDEC4Wl 5p5puCteOcl9Af1R2tOQSsDteczmhBGJQ8LHMppYBf5n4dGuSxdt4LF4gsVJEbmjkxmk qLNoObhXGmoxWRfD6Aun1k5gYcMnSOmIH5lN6at/RrETTECpKpun8EOoHjF2w9tWYkK9 SzLjsKbbnDfrdUD1qkJU2iiXhK8dhw1tNrrx+gPOi9qZ8vgS0QjsPjX2bIIcrUS8ZuvW piSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XzBtTyUuZAZ36Cvu3BHXUN5QOP1AlqjuoYzkcck7J1A=; b=lnIyK0oKeYBRiLYeUK6A/A90FXIDdXEwrCP3VKNnnCODHj4y+yIRR0zIgqG/VwcfU0 IOg0Id5PxIqPEwZvIgBD522UyL3erEeNrjtfYi1f6AbBHgYX6QLAKVo3PgLzLUI5k83H DID8ONY5Hh6NTdTCYEjjTjyScydzHnGdiTiUXpW13scwL3uDiWieQzszEG28h4nSYOpy EpuVjtx0hUaYv073hDmP0CqUPkqZpabjAj+ADHug2mbBRoMZlLPW4CW1CM9K8KivcOKW k305y8Uj8mZ8rcm0vbWR21dyUAn/P9s0JlnvdKwYQA02CciD3D9wRazNlbhNcrsJlhj5 XPVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532F6yK6xg/zSy1IkcbG26S4K4+LqJAvAEClwpS1B9l6FOZ/wjXl J7+Qr9Ynd0Yq27N8YpaZ2uXRBbGs9Cc/nexO+wQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBatjLL3awV/q6HXSBADXn5zyqN3/eccPfkLzcCrDeOzTapJW7A1LtPdzCPGSa9mzEUIr51TbhQWimpeRnEWc= X-Received: by 2002:a50:ec0e:: with SMTP id g14mr13880265edr.157.1629351272988; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 22:34:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202108172206.9cbgvI53-lkp@intel.com> <4dabc78a-f9ee-4e7d-8bf3-ea1c6cef8530@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4dabc78a-f9ee-4e7d-8bf3-ea1c6cef8530@intel.com> From: Matti Vaittinen Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 08:34:22 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [kbuild] drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c:531:8: warning: Excessive padding in 'struct bd718xx_regulator_data' (8 padding bytes, where 0 is optimal). To: kernel test robot Cc: Cristian Marussi , clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, kbuild-all@lists.01.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Mark Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 6:26 AM kernel test robot wrote: > >> drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c:531:8: warning: Excessive > padding in 'struct bd718xx_regulator_data' (8 padding bytes, where 0 is > optimal). > Optimal fields order: > dvs, > additional_inits, > additional_init_amnt, > init, > desc, > consider reordering the fields or adding explicit padding members > [clang-analyzer-optin.performance.Padding] > struct bd718xx_regulator_data { > ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > drivers/regulator/bd718x7-regulator.c:531:8: note: Excessive padding > in 'struct bd718xx_regulator_data' (8 padding bytes, where 0 is > optimal). Optimal fields order: dvs, additional_inits, > additional_init_amnt, init, desc, consider reordering the fields or > adding explicit padding members > struct bd718xx_regulator_data { > ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I don't have a good feeling about these checks. Especially when a struct is composed of other structs - which may be modified independently of the code we are looking at here. Any unrelated addition of a member to any of the structs (well, maybe not the one at the bottom). I guess fixing all the users of these structs when something changes would cause quite a churn of changes... What is expected to be done as a result from these mails? Best Regards -- Matti