On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 05:49, Brad Boyer <f...@allandria.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 06:12:29PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> It is basically working quite well. Unfortunately there is a big
>> problem which becomes apparent when running the libstdc++ testsuite: the
>> m68k compiler only guarantees a maximum alignment of 2 bytes, but the
>> futex syscall requires 4 byte alignment. So if your pthread mutex is
>> not aligned on a 4 byte boundary this will result in passing an
>> unaligned address to futex. I haven't yet decided on what would be the
>> best way to fix that.
>
> I may be missing something obvious, but why don't we just change the
> kernel to allow 2-byte alignment for m68k? The comment in futex.c
> just says "natural" alignment but is then hard-coded for sizeof(u32).
> What would break if we just changed the code in get_futex_key to
> allow this?
You mean (white-space damaged):
--- a/kernel/futex.c.orig 2010-04-15 20:41:58.000000000 +0200
+++ b/kernel/futex.c 2010-06-06 10:26:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ get_futex_key(u32 __user *uaddr, int fsh
* The futex address must be "naturally" aligned.
*/
key->both.offset = address % PAGE_SIZE;
- if (unlikely((address % sizeof(u32)) != 0))
+ if (unlikely((address % __alignof__(u32)) != 0))
return -EINVAL;
address -= key->both.offset;
Technically, it would bring the implementation in sync with the comment ;-)
Don't know if there are other places that make assumptions about
__alignof__(u32) == sizeof(u32).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
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, email to debian-68k-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktil505k-rtp3jk-yafmdfzpnqrpz-7mjhx5nb...@mail.gmail.com
