doc: fix deprecated doc of attribute packed

The Rust language reference (and my experience, proofed by tests) says, that `packed(n)` gives you the ability to align the struct too.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-layout.html

src/other-reprs.md

@@ -112,26 +112,43 @@ assert_eq!(16, size_of::<MyReprOption<&u16>>());
 
 This optimization still applies to fieldless enums with an explicit `repr(u*)`, `repr(i*)`, or `repr(C)`.
 
-## repr(packed)
+## repr(packed(n))
 
-`repr(packed)` forces Rust to strip any padding, and only align the type to a
-byte. This may improve the memory footprint, but will likely have other negative
-side-effects.
+`repr(packed(n))` forces the Rust compiler to strip any padding between fields, and align the type, hence, the first field, at least to a
+[`n`-byte boundary][rust-reference-type-layout] (where `n` is a power of two). `repr(packed)` is equivalent
+to `repr(packed(1))`.
+
+This `repr`-attribute is a modifier on `repr(C)` and `repr(Rust)`, but is incompatible with `align(n)`. It may improve
+the memory footprint and is useful in scenarios, where you need exact control over the memory layout
+(such as constructing network packets).
 
 In particular, most architectures *strongly* prefer values to be aligned. This
 may mean the unaligned loads are penalized (x86), or even fault (some ARM
-chips). For simple cases like directly loading or storing a packed field, the
-compiler might be able to paper over alignment issues with shifts and masks.
-However if you take a reference to a packed field, it's unlikely that the
-compiler will be able to emit code to avoid an unaligned load.
+chips). Fields of packed structs are not guaranteed to be properly aligned, and creating a reference to them is
+undefined behavior (even if that reference is never dereferenced). [As this can cause undefined behavior][ub loads],
+the lint has been implemented and it will become a hard error in the future (not yet in Rust nightly 1.58).
+
+The workaround is either to implement unsafe functionality on top of pointers or to copy the value. See the example
+below:
 
-[As this can cause undefined behavior][ub loads], the lint has been implemented
-and it will become a hard error.
+```rust
+#[repr(C, packed(2))]
+struct Foo {
+    a: u32,
+}
 
-`repr(packed)` is not to be used lightly. Unless you have extreme requirements,
-this should not be used.
+impl Foo {
+    /// Okay because it's a safe copy
+    fn a(&self) -> u32 {
+        self.a
+    }
+    /// Warning and future hard error
+    fn a_ref(&self) -> &u32 {
+        &self.a
+    }
+}
+```
 
-This repr is a modifier on `repr(C)` and `repr(Rust)`.
 
 ## repr(align(n))
 
@@ -153,3 +170,4 @@ This is a modifier on `repr(C)` and `repr(Rust)`. It is incompatible with
 [really-tagged]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2195-really-tagged-unions.md
 [rust-bindgen]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-bindgen/
 [cbindgen]: https://github.com/eqrion/cbindgen
+[rust-reference-type-layout]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-layout.html