On 15/04/2021 12:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.04.2021 12:26, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 14/04/2021 08:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.04.2021 20:19, Julien Grall wrote:
On 08/04/2021 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
There is a difference in generated code: xzalloc_bytes() forces
SMP_CACHE_BYTES
On 15.04.2021 12:26, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 14/04/2021 08:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.04.2021 20:19, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2021 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
There is a difference in generated code: xzalloc_bytes() forces
SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment. I think we not
Hi Jan,
On 14/04/2021 08:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.04.2021 20:19, Julien Grall wrote:
On 08/04/2021 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
There is a difference in generated code: xzalloc_bytes() forces
SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment. I think we not only don't need this here, but
actually don't want it.
So
On 13.04.2021 20:19, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 08/04/2021 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> There is a difference in generated code: xzalloc_bytes() forces
>> SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment. I think we not only don't need this here, but
>> actually don't want it.
>
> So I think moving to xmalloc_flex_struct(
Hi Jan,
On 08/04/2021 13:23, Jan Beulich wrote:
There is a difference in generated code: xzalloc_bytes() forces
SMP_CACHE_BYTES alignment. I think we not only don't need this here, but
actually don't want it.
So I think moving to xmalloc_flex_struct() is a pretty good move. But I
am actually