Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:05:55AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> writes:
>> > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> writes:
>
>> >> +struct __call_single_data {
>> >> struct llist_node llist;
>> >> smp_call_func_t func;
>> >> void *info;
>> >> unsigned int flags;
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> +typedef struct __call_single_data call_single_data_t
>> >> + __aligned(sizeof(struct __call_single_data));
>> >> +
>> >
>> > Another requirement of the alignment is that it should be the power of
>> > 2. Otherwise, for example, if someone adds a field to struct, so that
>> > the size becomes 40 on x86_64. The alignment should be 64 instead of
>> > 40.
>>
>> Thanks Aaron, he reminded me that there is a roundup_pow_of_two(). So
>> the typedef could be,
>>
>> typedef struct __call_single_data call_single_data_t
>> __aligned(roundup_pow_of_two(sizeof(struct __call_single_data));
>>
>
> Yes, that would take away the requirement to play padding games with the
> struct. Then again, maybe its a good thing to have to be explicit about
> it.
>
> If you see:
>
> struct __call_single_data {
> struct llist_node llist;
> smp_call_func_t func;
> void *info
> int flags;
> void *extra_field;
>
> unsigned long __padding[3]; /* make align work */
> };
>
> that makes it very clear what is going on. In any case, we can delay
> this part because the current structure is a power-of-2 for both ILP32
> and LP64. So only the person growing this will have to deal with it ;-)
Yes. That looks good. So you will prepare the final patch? Or you
hope me to do that?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
