[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1103110047360.2787@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:51:37 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, andi@...stfloor.org,
roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net,
sam@...nborg.org, michael@...erman.id.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: update for .39
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 00:32 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > It should work, but it hurts my eyes to see the source code forcing a 64-bit
> > > word to 32-bit alignment.
> >
> > We solved such stuff with macros in other places already.
> >
> > #ifdef 64bit
> > # define BLA 8
> > #else
> > # define BLA 4
> > #endif
> >
> > and then use
> >
> > .aling BLA
> >
> > Where is the problem?
>
> That's basically the solution that Jason came up with, and what I
> expected. What caught my eye was that David Miller had .align 4 for this
> on sparc which is the one arch that is truly picky about such things. As
> I understood more about this, I see that would work for both archs.
I doubt that sparc will barf when we make this 64/32bit aware. If it
does, we have some bigger fish to fry.
> That doesn't mean I'm against the .align BLA solution.
As hpa pointed out in some unreadable mail, we have _ASM_ALIGN on x86
already exactly for this purpose.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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