[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] __ia64__ ifdef in xmalloc.c: "Fix ar.unat handling forfast paths"
- To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:22:50 +1100
- Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, Xen Mailing List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Tony Breeds <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, djm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, David Mosberger-Tang <David.Mosberger@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:22:44 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 15:37 +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2005, at 15:07, Luck, Tony wrote:
>
> >> It's not hard to support arbitrary alignment, at the cost of burning
> >> some space. We should probably do that.
> >
> > The "we" in that last sentence is the Xen team ... referring
> > to making fixes to xmalloc?
>
> Correct. But I've thought more on it and I guess that actually the
> number of cases where we have structures with alignment requirements
> stricter than SMP_CACHE_BYTES will be very small. In fact I can't think
> of any in Xen right now. :-)
Right, which was why the original BUG_ON() which started this
discussion...
Rusty.
--
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver -- Richard Braakman
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
