[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100629154738.GJ5318@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:47:39 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
dwalker@...eaurora.org, stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de,
florian@...kler.org, andi@...stfloor.org, mst@...hat.com,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/35] workqueue: update cwq alignement
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 05:42:22PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 06/29/2010 02:36 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But then, if each cpu pointers are aligned, the struct itself doesn't need
> > to be aligned in its size right? It would need to if multiple elements
> > were allocated per cpu but for this struct we only have one per cpu. So
> > what seems to matter wrt alignment is only the base pointer of these structs,
> > not the size.
>
> Yeap, sure, but how does it matter?
It means the size of the struct itself doesn't need to aligned to anything.
--
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