Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751763AbdITK7b (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:59:31 -0400 Received: from conssluserg-06.nifty.com ([210.131.2.91]:41630 "EHLO conssluserg-06.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751497AbdITK7a (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:59:30 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-06.nifty.com v8KAxFJI022842 X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.161.181] X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAmeVcsgc3XOnXn8+nXgchGiqBYbfPETk0K9q5VhPqfkC70MZc96lcCPjfKRslQ9QRx5u5xeMr4LE4/83hN2xU= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170907164651.3bmhdkbnxvj3pz7g@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1504173383-8367-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20170907164651.3bmhdkbnxvj3pz7g@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 19:58:34 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: relax assembly code alignment from 16 byte to 4 byte To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-arm-kernel , Will Deacon , Rob Herring , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Russell King , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Olof Johansson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1146 Lines: 44 Hi Catalin, 2017-09-08 1:46 GMT+09:00 Catalin Marinas : > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 06:56:23PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Aarch64 instructions must be word aligned. The current 16 byte >> alignment is more than enough. Relax it into 4 byte alignment. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada >> --- >> >> I do not know why arm64 Linux requires 16 byte alignment. >> >> I dug git-history of arch/arm64/include/asm/linkage.h >> and the only commit I see is: >> >> commit aeed41a9371ee02257b608eb06a9058507a7d0f4 >> Author: Marc Zyngier >> Date: Fri Oct 19 17:33:27 2012 +0100 >> >> arm64: fix alignment padding in assembly code >> >> It just opt out of the asm-generic variant to remove 0x90. >> So, the amount of alignment might not be not optimized yet. >> >> Please correct me if I am missing something. > > Not sure why we ended up with 4. Possibly because we forgot the power of > 2 difference for arm/arm64. > > Queued for 4.14. Thanks. I still do not see this patch in linux-next. Where was it queued? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada