> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:27:51 +0200 > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > That element (the struct) needs *explicit* padding or alignment > > to the required multiplicity of bytes for anyone to portably be > > able to imply something other than "byte alignment" for the > > layout of it, as elements of an array, across systems. Use > > dummy elements or a compiler construct like __attribute__ > > ((__aligned__ (...))) per kernel policy or taste. I'd recommend > > specifying the alignment, so TRT will happen for it when it in > > turn is an element of an otherwise unpadded struct. > I see. I would say it's very risky ABI choice, but okay. > > What was the reason behind? I don't understand it. It was made some 20+ years ago, some of the reason being (here's the irony) compatibility with a toolchain for another architecture, popular at the time, now forgotten. Another reason (IIRC) was that it saves space. :) > Is it free to make misaligned memory access on CRIS? Within a cache-line for CRIS v32, it's free. > What about atomicity? How it works for misaligned accesses? Good spotting. No system with page layouts fixed at size multiples (all are, it'd be crazy to split pages as low as byte boundaries) can support naturally-misaligned atomic accesses. Therefore elements with access expecting atomicity, have be decorated with alignment-inducing attributes, for portability, e.g. to work for CRIS. In userspace, I can at times get away with calling a special function with a process-wide lock, in those cases where the upstream project is unlikely to timely understand e.g. that a naked "int" is not naturally aligned. > The patch below fixes issue for me. Thanks. > I'm not sure if we want to ask for alignment to sizeof(long). > aligned(2) works too. I guess you hit the right spot, but I'd think people would be more comfortable with aligning to sizeof (void *). brgds, H-P -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
