On Wed, 19 May 2010, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > So one of two things should happen: > > > > > > 1) SLOB conforms to SLAB/SLUB in it's test > > > > > > 2) SLAB/SLUB conforms to SLOB in it's test > > > > > > And yes this is an either-or, you can't say they are both valid. > > > > I don't see any reason to punish SLOB for the assumptions that SLAB/SLUB > > arbitrarily took up, presumably on an architecture that should have > > specified its own alignment requirements and simply couldn't be bothered. > > Making SLAB redzoning work with arbitrary alignment is another matter > > entirely, and something that should probably be revisited. > > > > Anything that assumes more than BYTES_PER_WORD is simply broken and > > should be reverted. The assumptions are not arbitrary. It is reasonable to assume that structures managed by the slab allocators may contain long long variables and that therefore a unsigned long long alignment is required by the allocator. It is the *compiler* who tells us that long long needs to be aligned at double word boundaries. If an arch does not require long long alignment on double word boundaries then the *compiler* should tell us that and then the allocators will align on word boundaries. -- 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
