Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]

> No correctness issues, obviously. So this could even be merged for 2.6.14
> (I'm not a fan of this idea, though).

I don't think it's a good idea to mess with this for 2.6.14

In general the maxaligned stuff is imho bogus and should be removed. That is 
what CONFIG_X86_GENERIC is for. It doesn't make sense imho to separate
the variables in two aligned classes - either they should be aligned in 
all cases or they shouldn't.

-Andi


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]
    • From: Blaisorblade <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 1/6] Uml - reuse i386 cpu-specific tuning
    • From: "Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]
    • From: "Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86_64: enable xchg optimization for x86_64
• Next by Date: Re: ktimers in RT causing bad bogomips and more.
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86_64: fix L1_CACHE_SHIFT_MAX for Intel EM64T [for 2.6.14?]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]