From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:22:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] __ia64__ ifdef in xmalloc.c: "Fix ar.unat handling Message-Id: <1132788170.13942.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: References: <883776988128f1657bc6dbd7d993cae1@cl.cam.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <883776988128f1657bc6dbd7d993cae1@cl.cam.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Keir Fraser Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , Xen Mailing List , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Tony Breeds , djm@kirby.fc.hp.com, "Luck, Tony" , David Mosberger-Tang On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 15:37 +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 23 Nov 2005, at 15:07, Luck, Tony wrote: > > >> It's not hard to support arbitrary alignment, at the cost of burning > >> some space. We should probably do that. > > > > The "we" in that last sentence is the Xen team ... referring > > to making fixes to xmalloc? > > Correct. But I've thought more on it and I guess that actually the > number of cases where we have structures with alignment requirements > stricter than SMP_CACHE_BYTES will be very small. In fact I can't think > of any in Xen right now. :-) Right, which was why the original BUG_ON() which started this discussion... Rusty. -- A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman