On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 14:20 -0700, David Miller wrote: > I think it does make sense to expect that, whatever my architecture > defines or does not define, I can expect the allocators to provide the > same minimum alignment guarentee. In a sense, they do. The minimum alignment guarantee is sizeof(long). You are guaranteed that no allocator will return memory blocks which are aligned to anything less than that. Some allocators may sometimes return memory blocks which are better-aligned than that -- but that's not guaranteed behaviour. If you _depend_ on that behaviour and it happens to vary with the phase of the moon, that's your problem. It would be better if the minimum alignment was exposed to generic code though -- you're right that the CPP tests in linux/crypto.h really shouldn't have to exist. If it wasn't for that, then the crypto problem wouldn't have occurred. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
