netdev - Re: wireless vs. alignment requirements

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

Date:	Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:51:15 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	johannes@...solutions.net
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, dsd@...too.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: wireless vs. alignment requirements

From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:49:36 +0100

> 
> On Sat, 2007-11-24 at 21:32 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 09:33:36AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > >
> > > We still require four-byte alignment, no?
> > 
> > Not at all.  If NET_IP_ALIGN is zero then it won't be four-byte
> > aligned (since the Ethernet header is 14 bytes long).
> 
> Right. I just didn't think that would be a valid value for an
> architecture to set.

It is, and explicitly used by powerpc to get more of the
DMA transfers 64-byte aligned which is critical for
performance on some powerpc boxes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html