On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 21:57 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > You can often get away with it - I notice we never added the same
> > alignment to struct anon_vma, which in theory needed it just as much.
> > Some accident of how structures are packed into slabs on CRIS, I suppose.
>
> That sounds very strange to me, but it's harmless enough to add the
> explicit alignment.
It's occurred to me that the unusual thing about struct address_space
is that it does _not_ have a slab cache of its own: it's for years been
part of the struct inode itself; and I guess that exposes it to an
alignment issue which slab objects themselves avoid. But still a
good idea to add the explicit alignment as doc.
Hugh
-
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/
[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]
