Re: [BUG] SLOB breaks Crypto

From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Wed May 19 2010 - 07:51:04 EST

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 13:40, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 13:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Instead of having (different) defaults in sl[aou]b, perhaps we should
>> just remove the defaults completely, to ensure all architectures set
>> ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to the correct value?
> What is 'correct'? The architecture sets it to the minimum value that it
> can cope with, according to its own alignment constraints (and DMA/cache
> constraints, in the case of ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN).
> Some architectures don't _have_ any minimum required alignment, so they
> have no need to set it. If the architecture _does_ specify a minimum,
> the allocators must honour it. Otherwise, they're free to do their own
> thing. And slob chooses to use a smaller alignment than slab and slub
> do, in accordance with its design and its raison d'Ãtre.

Currently 7 out of 20+ architectures set it.
Any bets on how many are missing, but should set it?



Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at