[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080320220348.GC1330@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:03:48 -0400
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, sam@...nborg.org,
dsd@...too.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] introduce ARCH_CAN_UNALIGNED_ACCESS Kconfig
symbol
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> > I think you're semantically testing the wrong thing.
> >
> > It's not if unaligned accesses are supported, it's if they are
> > efficient enough or not.
> >
> > For example, sparc64 fully handles unaligned accesses but taking the
> > trap to fix it up is slow. So sparc64 "can" handle unaligned
> > accesses, but whether we want to set this symbol or not is another
> > matter.
>
> Yeah, good point. Should I rename it to HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> or similar? Or have it defined as some sort of number so you can make
> actually make tradeoffs? Like Dave Woodhouse suggested at some point to
> have get_unaligned() take an argument that indicates the probability...
Ugh...that sounds like premature optimization to me...
While I think Dave has a point, I don't think you should labor the word
choice too much. Try to document it as clearly as possible and hope
for the best -- I hear that the arch maintainers are top notch! :-)
John
--
John W. Linville
linville@...driver.com
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists