linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARC: io.h: Implement reads{x}()/writes{x}()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1fef03c6-05cb-cc9b-ffdd-cb5f7d790322@synopsys.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:19:53 +0000
From:   Jose Abreu <jose.abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Jose Abreu' <jose.abreu@...opsys.com>,
        "linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@...opsys.com>,
        Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@...opsys.com>,
        Joao Pinto <joao.pinto@...opsys.com>,
        "Vitor Soares" <vitor.soares@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: io.h: Implement reads{x}()/writes{x}()

On 29-11-2018 13:11, Jose Abreu wrote
>> I was thinking of the (probably likely) case where the pointer is
>> actually aligned.
>> An extra check for ((pointer) & 3) is almost certainly a 'win'
>> over the byte accesses and shift/mask/or use by get/put_unaligned().

Oh, sorry. I was misunderstanding. You mean like adding a check
for unaligned and use get/put_unaligned() only in that case right ?

Sorry.

>>
>> The IO accesses probably dominate making more complex optimisations
>> less likely to have any benefit.
>>
>> 	David
>>
>> -
>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)