From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F33D6B0082 for ; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:24:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] slob: push the min alignment to long long From: Matt Mackall In-Reply-To: <20110615201202.GB19593@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> References: <20110614201031.GA19848@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> <1308089140.15617.221.camel@calx> <20110615201202.GB19593@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:24:26 -0500 Message-ID: <1308169466.15617.378.camel@calx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, "David S. Miller" , netfilter@vger.kernel.org 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. 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: email@kvack.org