From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753434AbZEZBpg (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 21:45:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752463AbZEZBp0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 21:45:26 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]:9193 "EHLO sj-iport-6.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752018AbZEZBpZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 May 2009 21:45:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,247,1241395200"; d="scan'208";a="310524172" From: Roland Dreier To: Boaz Harrosh Cc: Jens Axboe , FUJITA Tomonori , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, david@fromorbit.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jack@suse.cz, yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] scsi: unify allocation of scsi command and sense buffer References: <1243236668-3398-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1243236668-3398-6-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <4A1A64A1.2050409@panasas.com> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 18:45:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4A1A64A1.2050409@panasas.com> (Boaz Harrosh's message of "Mon, 25 May 2009 12:28:01 +0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 May 2009 01:45:26.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[A45D8590:01C9DDA3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Ideally there should be a MACRO that is defined to WORD_SIZE on cache-coherent > ARCHs and to SMP_CACHE_BYTES on none-cache-coherent systems and use that size > at the __align() attribute. (So only stupid ARCHES get hurt) this seems to come up repeatedly -- I had a proposal a _long_ time ago that never quite got merged, cf http://lwn.net/Articles/2265/ and http://lwn.net/Articles/2269/ -- from 2002 (!?). The idea is to go a step further and create a __dma_buffer annotation for structure members. Maybe I should resurrect that work one more time? - R.