[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0905041042g71af324eo1d38e35799836c86@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:42:08 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To: Tim Abbott <tabbott@....edu>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Anders Kaseorg <andersk@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] macros for section name cleanup
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:32, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> +#define RW_DATA_SECTION(page_align, readmostly_align, cache_align,
>> inittask_align) \
>> + . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); \
>> + .data : AT(ADDR(.data) - LOAD_OFFSET) { \
>> + DATA_DATA \
>> + CONSTRUCTORS \
>> + NOSAVE_DATA \
>> + PAGE_ALIGNED_DATA(page_align) \
>> + READMOSTLY_DATA(readmostly_align) \
>> + CACHELINE_ALIGNED_DATA(cache_align) \
>> + INIT_TASK(inittask_align) \
>> + }
>
> How did you pick the order of the sections here? I would think that to
> pack the .data section efficiently, you'd want to sort by alignment
> requirements so that e.g. all the at-least-page aligned sections are
> adjacent (INIT_TASK and the page-aligned sections are separated by some
> much smaller aligments here).
if this were actually the case, there should of course be some /*
comments */ above the define explaining that the order wasnt
arbitrarily pulled like a rabbit from an orifice. if you're
scratching your head, then there's going to be plenty more people who
never ask but treat it like untouchable voodoo.
-mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists