Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "forfast".
Did you mean:
forcast
2005 Nov 23
0
RE: __ia64__ ifdef in xmalloc.c: "Fix ar.unat handling forfast paths"
>From: Luck, Tony
>Sent: 2005年11月23日 0:11
>This comment:
>> /*
>> * The "aligned" directive can only _increase_ alignment, so this is
>> * safe and provides an easy way to avoid wasting space on a
>> * uni-processor:
>> */
>suggests that we only expected SMP_CACHE_BYTES to be used in "aligned"
>directives, where having
2005 Nov 23
2
RE: __ia64__ ifdef in xmalloc.c: "Fix ar.unat handling forfast paths"
>It''s not hard to support arbitrary alignment, at the cost of burning
>some space. We should probably do that.
The "we" in that last sentence is the Xen team ... referring
to making fixes to xmalloc?
-Tony
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
2005 Nov 22
2
RE: __ia64__ ifdef in xmalloc.c: "Fix ar.unat handling forfast paths"
>From: Rusty Russell
>Sent: 2005年11月21日 12:53
>Hi all,
>
> While browsing the code, I noticed this in xmalloc.c:
>
>#ifndef __ia64__
> BUG_ON(align > SMP_CACHE_BYTES);
>#endif
>
> This is clearly wrong: due to header alignment we cannot give you a
>greater alignment than SMP_CACHE_BYTES. Overriding this will cause the
>allocation to succeed, but not