On Wed, 19 May 2010 13:19:45 +0100 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 21:02 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > On Wed, 19 May 2010 12:40:36 +0100 > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 13:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > What is 'correct'? The architecture sets it to the minimum value that it > > > can cope with, according to its own alignment constraints (and DMA/cache > > > constraints, in the case of ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN). > > > > IIRC, not all the architectures do that; ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN doesn't > > mean "DMA-safe" alignment currently. > > Surely those architectures that have alignment constraints for DMA but > which don't set ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN are just buggy -- it _does_ mean > that. Well, I thought so but seems that there isn't such agreement: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/5/12/4568960 -- 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
