Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:35:51 -0700 | From | merblich <> | Subject | Re: Process Scope Scheduling Support |
| |
Chris,
Is your new element at the end of the struct?
What happens if you place it there?
Mitch ==========
cd_smith@ou.edu wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Riley Williams wrote: > > > I'm still trying to figure out why adding a member to the > > > task_struct keeps the kernel from booting even when I don't > > > even use that member anywhere in the source. > > > > At a guess, the task structure has some alignment requirement that > > your additional member breaks... > > Oh, I didn't know that... what are the alignment requirements? At the > very least, I can document them in include/linux/sched.h and submit a > patch for that. It could solve a lot of headache in the future. Aside > from the "these are hardcoded - don't touch" comment, I don't see anything > that could imply alignment constraints. The comment above just refers to > the hardcoded member offsets in the arch/ directories, right? So if I > update those, I should be able to "touch" in order to get a commonly used > pointer into the first cache line? Or did I miss something there? > > Chris Smith <cd_smith@ou.edu> > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |