Re: [PATCH 09/10] Change table chaining layout

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > Why can't we just make the list one item longer than the entry count and
> > stick a NULL on the end of it like normal people ? Then you need one bit
> > which ought to be safe for everyone (and if the bit is a macro any CPU
> > warped enough to have byte alignment is surely going to have top bits
> > spare...)
> 
> Well, quite frankly, equally easy is to just add a
> 
> 	__attribute__((aligned(4)))
> 
> or whatever the gcc syntax for that is today.. That guarantees that gcc 
> lays things out properly.

For structures, not array elements or stack objects. Does gcc now get
aligned correct as an attribute on a stack object ?

Still doesn't answer the rather more important question - why not just
stick a NULL on the end instead of all the nutty hacks ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/