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

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

 



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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Netfilter Development]     [Linux Kernel Networking Development]     [Netem]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Advanced Routing & Traffice Control]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux