[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071022224343.4abf3c96@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:43:43 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...e.hu, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] Change table chaining layout
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
> > stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ? Then you need one bit
> > which ought to be safe for everyone (and if the bit is a macro any CPU
> > warped enough to have byte alignment is surely going to have top bits
> > spare...)
>
> Well, quite frankly, equally easy is to just add a
>
> __attribute__((aligned(4)))
>
> or whatever the gcc syntax for that is today.. That guarantees that gcc
> lays things out properly.
For structures, not array elements or stack objects. Does gcc now get
aligned correct as an attribute on a stack object ?
Still doesn't answer the rather more important question - why not just
stick a NULL on the end instead of all the nutty hacks ?
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists