Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:53:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:53:39 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:12416 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:53:38 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:08:55 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Rusty Russell cc: Hugh Dickins , mingming cao , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH]updated ipc lock patch In-Reply-To: <20021028044308.CE3292C0C7@lists.samba.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1148 Lines: 39 On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message y > ou write: > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > +struct ipc_rcu_kmalloc > > > +{ > > > + struct rcu_head rcu; > > > + /* "void *" makes sure alignment of following data is sane. */ > > > + void *data[0]; > > > +}; > > > > Rusty, why not using gcc "aligned" keywords instead of black magic : > > > > void *data[0]; > > I think it's clearer *why* it's being done than: > > struct ipc_rcu_kmalloc > { > struct rcu_head rcu; > } __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__(void *)))); Well, not really Rusty. The above syntax uses documented gcc features already used inside the kernel, while the fact that void *data[0]; enforces alignment it is not ( to my knowledge ) documented anywhere. You can also avoid the comment using the aligned syntax ... - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/