[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52853F18.4040605@tilera.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:22:32 -0500
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
To: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
CC: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>, Erik Jacobson <erikj@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] connector: improved unaligned access error fix
On 11/14/2013 2:45 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:09:21 -0500
> Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com> wrote:
>
>> - __u8 buffer[CN_PROC_MSG_SIZE];
>> + __u8 buffer[CN_PROC_MSG_SIZE] __aligned(8);
>> - msg = (struct cn_msg *)buffer;
>> + msg = buffer_to_cn_msg(buffer);
>> ev = (struct proc_event *)msg->data;
>> memset(&ev->event_data, 0, sizeof(ev->event_data));
> Why is memset(buffer,0,CN_PROC_MSG_SIZE) not acceptable?
That would be fine from a correctness point of view; I'm happy
either way. My patch nominally has better performance, for
what that's worth, since the memset() call is for a smaller
range (24 bytes instead of 60). It also avoids the need for
put_unaligned(), which even on platforms that allow unaligned
stores can still be slower.
I can certainly do a v2 with the larger memset() instead if
that's the consensus.
--
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com
--
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