[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080411.031642.193716019.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dhowells@...hat.com
Cc: harvey.harrison@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: Move arches to use common unaligned access
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:11:28 +0100
> Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > - * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memcpy.
> > + * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memmov.
>
> That's memmove, not memmov. Any why memmove, not memcpy? Is __tmp likely to
> overlap with *ptr?
No, I think it has something to do with what cases GCC is allowed to
optimize the call inline and what cases it cannot wrt. alignment of
datums.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists