From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: force dst_default_metrics to const section
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:34:14 +0200
Message-ID: <1344378854.28967.201.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
References: <1344355878.28967.113.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <1344370527.2688.61.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
	 <1344372945.28967.165.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
	 <1344377561.2688.66.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:42417 "EHLO
	mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757291Ab2HGWeS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:34:18 -0400
Received: by weyx8 with SMTP id x8so83445wey.19
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1344377561.2688.66.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 23:12 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 22:55 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > 
> > 
> > > Some day the compiler may be smart enough to ignore the different
> > > between explicit and implicit zero-initialisation, and put it back in
> > > BSS.  Declaring this __cache_aligned_in_smp might be a better option.
> > 
> > __cache_aligned_in_smp aligns start of the structure, but can be
> > followed by another var in same cache line. Yes, this is bad.
> 
> Oh, that's unexpected.
> 
> > By the way we dont care of cache alignment on this structure, only it
> > should be const. Its a soft requirement, machine wont crash if it is not
> > the case.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > If compiler is smart one day as you say (it should first be non buggy
> > IMHO), then we can add a non zero field like this :
> [...]
> 
> That would work, but it's ugly!  How about defining and using a
> meaningfully-named macro that expands to __section(.rodata)?

You are kidding. I prefer plain C and not having to mess with all
arches.