From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:24:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200510260024.17241.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051025221253.21106.22572.stgit@zion.home.lan>
> No correctness issues, obviously. So this could even be merged for 2.6.14
> (I'm not a fan of this idea, though).
I don't think it's a good idea to mess with this for 2.6.14
In general the maxaligned stuff is imho bogus and should be removed. That is
what CONFIG_X86_GENERIC is for. It doesn't make sense imho to separate
the variables in two aligned classes - either they should be aligned in
all cases or they shouldn't.
-Andi
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc.
Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course
Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005
Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:24:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200510260024.17241.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051025221253.21106.22572.stgit@zion.home.lan>
> No correctness issues, obviously. So this could even be merged for 2.6.14
> (I'm not a fan of this idea, though).
I don't think it's a good idea to mess with this for 2.6.14
In general the maxaligned stuff is imho bogus and should be removed. That is
what CONFIG_X86_GENERIC is for. It doesn't make sense imho to separate
the variables in two aligned classes - either they should be aligned in
all cases or they shouldn't.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-25 22:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-25 22:11 [uml-devel] [PATCH 1/6] Uml - reuse i386 cpu-specific tuning Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:11 ` Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:12 ` [uml-devel] [PATCH 2/6] uml: fix "reuse i386 cpu optimizations" Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:12 ` Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:12 ` [uml-devel] [PATCH 3/6] uml: remove old UM_FASTCALL, and make the thing work again Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:12 ` Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:12 ` [uml-devel] [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?] Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:12 ` Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:24 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2005-10-25 22:24 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-25 22:44 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2005-10-25 22:44 ` Blaisorblade
2005-10-25 23:33 ` [uml-devel] " Andi Kleen
2005-10-25 23:33 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-26 0:00 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2005-10-26 0:00 ` Blaisorblade
2005-10-25 22:13 ` [uml-devel] [PATCH 5/6] i386: use -mcpu, not -mtune, for GCCs older than 3.4 Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:13 ` Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:13 ` [uml-devel] [PATCH 6/6] x86_64: enable xchg optimization for x86_64 Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:13 ` Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
2005-10-25 22:22 ` [uml-devel] " Andi Kleen
2005-10-25 22:22 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-25 22:44 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2005-10-25 22:44 ` Blaisorblade
2005-10-26 7:22 ` [uml-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/6] Uml - reuse i386 cpu-specific tuning Andrew Morton
2005-10-26 7:22 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-26 9:19 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2005-10-26 9:19 ` Blaisorblade
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200510260024.17241.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=blaisorblade@yahoo.it \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.