| To: | yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH,RFC] [NET] ALIGN |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:20:07 -0800 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040209.134528.28683257.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> |
| References: | <20040209.134528.28683257.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 13:45:28 +0900 (JST) YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > D: Use ALIGN() where appricable. > > BTW, > 1. do we really need this ALIGN? > 2. should 16 be BYTES_PER_WORD (in mm/slab.c)? Let's hold on this patch. Why does it want to align the table entry size to 16 bytes anyways? I think this is complete nonsense, and that the alignment is not necessary. I can't even come up with a performance reason as SLAB is going to align things to hw cache line size anyways. Can anybody come up with some theory ? :-) Else let's just remove this bogus 16 byte alignment in the kmem_cache_create() call. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] [IPV6] LL_RESERVED_SPACE, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [BK PATCH] 2.6.2 SCTP updates, Sridhar Samudrala |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH,RFC] [NET] ALIGN, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH,RFC] [NET] ALIGN, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |