[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yx+MBXvGLhbd7dHH@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2022 21:44:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Johannes Wikner <kwikner@...z.ch>,
Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@...ux.intel.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
Joseph Nuzman <joseph.nuzman@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/59] x86/build: Ensure proper function alignment
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:09:38AM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The patch looks sane, the only thing I worry a bit about is
>
> > +config FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT
> > + int
> > + default 64 if FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_64B
> ..
> > + default 0
>
> Is '0' even a valid value then for things like
At the time I thought to have read that 0 alignment effectively no-ops
the statement, but now I can't find it in a hurry, happy to make it
default to 4.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists