On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 07:23:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:30:47PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > commit 89d39c83d193733ed5fff1c480cd42c9de1da404
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney
> > Date: Tue Aug 23 06:51:47 2016 -0700
> >
> > rcu: Tighted up __call_rcu() rcu
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> commit 89d39c83d193733ed5fff1c480cd42c9de1da404
> Author: Paul E. McKenney
> Date: Tue Aug 23 06:51:47 2016 -0700
>
> rcu: Tighted up __call_rcu() rcu_head alignment check
>
> Commit 720abae3d68ae ("rcu: force alignment on struc
Hi Paul,
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon,
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 2
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200
> >> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Don't
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> > > Don't we have __alignof__(void *) to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_M68K and
>> > > other new macros ?
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Don't we have __alignof__(void *) to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_M68K and
> > > other new macros ?
Hmmm... Does __alignof__(void *) give two-byte alignment on m68k,
all
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Don't we have __alignof__(void *) to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_M68K and
> > other new macros ?
>
> Yes, but that 'hides' the m68k funny, while doing an explicit #ifdef has
> documentation value... but I don't care too deeply.
I'd recommen
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:48:53AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>
> > That does have much to say for itself, though I would prefer sizeof(void
> > *) to sizeof(unsigned long). But would it make sense to define a mask
> > on a per-archit
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> That does have much to say for itself, though I would prefer sizeof(void
> *) to sizeof(unsigned long). But would it make sense to define a mask
> on a per-architecture basis, with the default being (sizeof(void *) - 1)?
> Then maybe an
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:25:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:14:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The __call_rcu() assertion that checks only the bottom bit of the
> > rcu_head pointer is a bit counter-intuitive in these days of ubiquitous
> > 64-bit systems.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:14:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The __call_rcu() assertion that checks only the bottom bit of the
> rcu_head pointer is a bit counter-intuitive in these days of ubiquitous
> 64-bit systems. This commit therefore records the reason for this
> odd alignment check,
The __call_rcu() assertion that checks only the bottom bit of the
rcu_head pointer is a bit counter-intuitive in these days of ubiquitous
64-bit systems. This commit therefore records the reason for this
odd alignment check, namely that m68k guarantees only two-byte alignment
despite being a 32-bi
16 matches
Mail list logo