Re: ZONE_PADDING wastes 4 bytes of the new cacheline

Adam Heath
2004-10-21T18:57:32Z

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:51:18PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > Have you verified that? GCCs up to and including 2.95.3 and
> > early versions of 2.96 miscompiled the kernel when spinlocks
> > where empty structs on UP. I.e., you might not get a compile-time
> > error but runtime corruption instead.
>
> peraphs we should add a check on the compiler and force people to use
> gcc >= 3?
>
> Otherwise adding an #ifdef will fix 2.95, just like the spinlock does in
> UP.
>
> btw, the only machine where I still have gcc 2.95.3 is not uptodate
> enough to run 2.6 regardless of the fact 2.6 could compile on such
> machine or not.

So compile a 2.6 kernel on the machine with 2.95.3 for another machine.