[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+8MBbK_nfOhZGsd5wU-hyiwh3pHS5c42eiBfxLpCjDgBKUqJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:26:26 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-am33-list@...hat.com, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Suggestion] arch/*/include/asm/bitops.h: about __set_bit() API.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com> wrote:
> using 'unsigned int *', implicitly:
> ./ia64/include/asm/bitops.h:63:__set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
There is some downside on ia64 to your suggestion. If "addr" is properly
aligned for an "int", but misaligned for a long ... i.e. addr%8 == 4, then I'll
take an unaligned reference trap if I work with long* where the current code
working with int* does not.
Now perhaps all the callers do guarantee long* alignment? But I don't know.
Apart from uniformity, there doesn't see to be any upside to changing this.
-Tony Luck
--
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