On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 09:14, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 11:05 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>> While this problem wouldn't have occurred, we would instead have
>> data corruption/alignment faults on architectures such as sparc32
>> or ARM that require 64-bit alignment for 64-bit objects.
>
> Yeah, but that's what ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN is for.
>
> ARM gets this right, and Dave has already said he's going to fix sparc.
Instead of having (different) defaults in sl[aou]b, perhaps we should just
remove the defaults completely, to ensure all architectures set
ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to the correct value?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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
