[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100526073334.GD26696@linux-sh.org>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:33:34 +0900
From: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jie Zhang <jie@...esourcery.com>, uclinux-dev@...inux.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
David McCullough <davidm@...pgear.com>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
microblaze-uclinux@...e.uq.edu.au, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
linux-m32r@...linux-m32r.org,
Hirokazu Takata <takata@...ux-m32r.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FLAT: allow arches to declare a larger alignment than the slab
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 03:23:02AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 02:59, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > From looking at <linux/flat.h>, it looks like the FLAT binary format
> > doesn't contain any
> > alignment information? So if I put __attribute__((aligned(4096))) in a
> > file, there's still
> > no guarantee it will actually be in memory at a 4Ki-aligned address?
>
> i believe that is correct. FLAT behavior today provides alignment of
> either sizeof(unsigned long) or ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN.
>
> i imagine something like this would work today because everyone
> defines it to a constant:
> -#ifdef ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN
> +#if defined(ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN) && ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN != 0
> but this would break if someone tried using gcc sizeof/alignof/etc...
alignof is used by SLUB/SLOB to set the ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN value if the
architecture hasn't already specified one, so that wouldn't work.
--
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