[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F575F09.3010107@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:13:45 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: gcc@....gnu.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, andi.kleen@...el.com, gcc-help@....gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] spindep: add cross cache lines checking
> I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) < __alignof__(rwlock_t)),
> otherwise it will still pass when you have structure with attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
reasonable!
>
>> 1, it is alignof bug for default gcc on my fc15 and Ubuntu 11.10 etc?
>>
>> struct sub {
>> int raw_lock;
>> char a;
>> };
>> struct foo {
>> struct sub z;
>> int slk;
>> char y;
>> }__attribute__((packed));
>>
>> struct foo f1;
>>
>> __alignof__(f1.z.raw_lock) is 4, but its address actually can align on
>> one byte.
>
> That looks like correct behavior, because the alignment of raw_lock inside of
> struct sub is still 4. But it does mean that there can be cases where the
> compile-time check is not sufficient, so we might want the run-time check
> as well, at least under some config option.
what's your opinion of this, Ingo?
--
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