Re: ZONE_PADDING wastes 4 bytes of the new cacheline

[DaMouse]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:54:41 -0500 (CDT), Adam Heath <doogie@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

-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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/