Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270951AbUJVKJd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:09:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270947AbUJVKJd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:09:33 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.197]:7707 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270952AbUJVKJR (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:09:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=tinRb0OoOQXUVCiXMvzvvBNtt+ICYukgaj0yHG/KfChO4Sp5JXdhoEao1Nko02Py6DbTw9cu4Z/7uy9Ns2obscAbqi/kMIWU5bHtfMtTd5OyyQ0/595IqTxpvXsK6wxuSLlw2Ao0DOd7a/6Fkpqh2iOvSkOtlYq38Bo1mH5IMO4= Message-ID: <1a56ea3904102203095d6122a9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:09:15 +0100 From: DaMouse Reply-To: DaMouse To: LKML Subject: Re: ZONE_PADDING wastes 4 bytes of the new cacheline In-Reply-To: <35fb2e59041021142467941ed1@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20041021011714.GQ24619@dualathlon.random> <417728B0.3070006@yahoo.com.au> <20041020213622.77afdd4a.akpm@osdl.org> <16759.38054.944944.610417@alkaid.it.uu.se> <20041021124505.GD8756@dualathlon.random> <1a56ea3904102113217018d925@mail.gmail.com> <35fb2e59041021142467941ed1@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1823 Lines: 47 On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:24:44 +0100, Jon Masters wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:21:55 +0100, DaMouse wrote: > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:54:41 -0500 (CDT), Adam Heath wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 12:51:18PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > > > Have you verified that? GCCs up to and including 2.95.3 and > > > > > early versions of 2.96 miscompiled the kernel when spinlocks > > > > > where empty structs on UP. I.e., you might not get a compile-time > > > > > error but runtime corruption instead. > > > > > > > > peraphs we should add a check on the compiler and force people to use > > > > gcc >= 3? > > > > > > > > Otherwise adding an #ifdef will fix 2.95, just like the spinlock does in > > > > UP. > > > > > > > > btw, the only machine where I still have gcc 2.95.3 is not uptodate > > > > enough to run 2.6 regardless of the fact 2.6 could compile on such > > > > machine or not. > > > > > > So compile a 2.6 kernel on the machine with 2.95.3 for another machine. > > > > > > > I think what he was referring to was that most machines with 2.95.x > > have older kernels anyway. > > That's probably mostly true even for embedded folks, but I don't think > it's a good idea to completely throw away 2.95 users just yet. Better > to use ifdefs or somesuch for now. > > Jon. > Perhaps making gcc 4.x a target for 2.7 would be a good idea though? -DaMouse -- I know I broke SOMETHING but its there fault for not fixing it before me - 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/