[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100519.125630.121263182.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: cl@...ux.com
Cc: lethal@...ux-sh.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi, mpm@...enic.com,
herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, ken@...elabs.ch,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, michael-dev@...i-braun.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
anemo@....ocn.ne.jp, dwmw2@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] SLOB breaks Crypto
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 10:19:33 -0500 (CDT)
> The assumptions are not arbitrary. It is reasonable to assume that
> structures managed by the slab allocators may contain long long variables
> and that therefore a unsigned long long alignment is required by the
> allocator. It is the *compiler* who tells us that long long needs to be
> aligned at double word boundaries. If an arch does not require long long
> alignment on double word boundaries then the *compiler* should tell us
> that and then the allocators will align on word boundaries.
That is a good point.
So really, __alignof__(unsigned long long) is technically always right.
Because it should evaluate to "4" on x86-32, for example.
--
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