[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274271585.6930.9983.camel@macbook.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:19:45 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc: geert@...ux-m68k.org, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au,
davem@...emloft.net, penberg@...helsinki.fi, mpm@...enic.com,
ken@...elabs.ch, michael-dev@...i-braun.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
anemo@....ocn.ne.jp
Subject: Re: [BUG] SLOB breaks Crypto
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 21:02 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 12:40:36 +0100
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 13:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Instead of having (different) defaults in sl[aou]b, perhaps we should
> > > just remove the defaults completely, to ensure all architectures set
> > > ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to the correct value?
> >
> > What is 'correct'? The architecture sets it to the minimum value that it
> > can cope with, according to its own alignment constraints (and DMA/cache
> > constraints, in the case of ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN).
>
> IIRC, not all the architectures do that; ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN doesn't
> mean "DMA-safe" alignment currently.
Surely those architectures that have alignment constraints for DMA but
which don't set ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN are just buggy -- it _does_ mean
that.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@...el.com Intel Corporation
--
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