[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160822151854.175dfea8@grimm.local.home>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:18:54 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
oleg@...hat.com, pranith kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/2] documentation: Record reason for
rcu_head two-byte alignment
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Don't we have __alignof__(void *) to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_M68K and
> > other new macros ?
>
> Yes, but that 'hides' the m68k funny, while doing an explicit #ifdef has
> documentation value... but I don't care too deeply.
I'd recommend keeping the #ifdef, and then if another architecture
comes along that is as weird as m68k, we can use the generic
__alignof__(void *). Maybe even add that in the comment, so when/if
that arch is created, people will know how to fix it more generically.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists