On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 22:12 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Matt Mackall | 2011-06-14 17:05:40 [-0500]: > > >Ok, so you claim that ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN is not set on some > >architectures, and thus SLOB does the wrong thing. > > > >Doesn't that rather obviously mean that the affected architectures > >should define ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN? Because, well, they have an > >"architecture-specific minimum kmalloc alignment"? > > nope, if nothing is defined SLOB asumes that alignment of long is the way > go. Unfortunately alignment of u64 maybe larger than of u32. I understand that. I guess we have a different idea of what constitutes "architecture-specific" and what constitutes "normal". But I guess I can be persuaded that most architectures now expect 64-bit alignment of u64s. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>