[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110119223440.GE23544@Krystal>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:34:40 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, richm@...elvet.org.uk,
609371@...s.debian.org, ben@...adent.org.uk,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Bug#609371: linux-image-2.6.37-trunk-sparc64: module scsi_mod:
Unknown relocation: 36
* Sam Ravnborg (sam@...nborg.org) wrote:
> >
> > I still wonder how a 32-bit system can generate an unaligned access trap for an
> > access to a 64-bit variable aligned on 32-bit, given that there is, by
> > definition, no 64-bit memory accesses available on the architecture ?
>
> From the SPARC V8 manual (this is the 32 bit version of SPARC):
>
> Load/Store Instructions
>
> ...
> Integer load and store instructions support byte (8-bit), halfword (16-bit), word
> (32-bit), and doubleword (64-bit) accesses.
> ...
>
> Alignment Restrictions
>
> Halfword accesses must be aligned on a 2-byte boundary, word accesses (which
> include instruction fetches) must be aligned on a 4-byte boundary, and doubleword
> accesses must be aligned on an 8-byte boundary. An improperly aligned
> address causes a load or store instruction to generate a mem_address_not_aligned
> trap.
Ah! There is always an odd case ;) Thanks!
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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