[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BA39CD1.8060900@rsk.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:48:33 +0000
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: tj@...nel.org, fweisbec@...il.com, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] percpu misaligned allocation
On 19/03/10 03:02, David Miller wrote:
> From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:18:51 +0900
>
>> On 03/19/2010 10:57 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> I would use u64 so something like:
>>>
>>> u64 [FTRACE_MAX_PROFILE_SIZE / sizeof(u64)]
>>
>> <paranoid>DIV_ROUND_UP() would be safer than division</paranoid>
>
> There's potential real trouble if it isn't a multiple of sizeof(u64)
> so better:
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(FTRACE_MAX_PROFILE_SIZE % sizeof(u64));
>
> :-)
>
> What a mess, just because this thing can't be typed properly :-/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Couldn't you use a union?
For example if you have
union test {
long t;
char buffer[50];
};
gcc will then do the right thing.
on x86_64 sizeof(union test) = 56
but on x86_32 it's only 52.
regards
Richard
--
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