linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Centralise definitions of sector_t and blkcnt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0612051958550.18570@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Tue, 5 Dec 2006 20:02:32 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Centralise definitions of sector_t and blkcnt_t


On Dec 4 2006 19:44, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>[...]allow even 64-bit architectures to say that they only want 32-bit 
>sector_t's and page indexes [...]
>
>I don't know how big a deal it is, but I could imagine that we could 
>actually save memory in a smaller "struct page", for example, on 64bit 
>architectures by just using a 4-byte index.
>
>For now, the !64BIT makes sense simply because a 64-bit architecture 
>probably doesn't care, and might as well just use 64 bits anyway (ie you 
>tend to have tons of memory there anyway). And I suspect it doesn't 
>actually even help on 64-bits due to structure alignment etc issues, but 
>am too lazy to go check.

sparc could benefit from this (someone go correct me if I am wrong).
Not only in struct sizes, but maybe also a little in execution time.


	-`J'
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/