Re: [PATCH] slob: push the min alignment to long long

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:23 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > I don't agree. I think we should either provide defaults that work for
> > everyone and let architectures override them (which AFAICT Christoph's
> > patch does) or we flat out #error if architectures don't specify
> > alignment requirements.
> 
> Uh, isn't the latter precisely what I say above?
> 
> >  The current solution seems to be the worst one
> > from practical point of view.
> 
> Good, because no one's advocating for it.

Sorry, I totally misunderstood what you wrote!

			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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]