On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Changing the alignment for everyone is likely to cause less problems
in the future. Matt, are there any practical reasons why we shouldn't
do that?
Pekka
--
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>