From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harvey Harrison Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] kernel: move arches that use the generic_le/be helpers Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:43:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1207860182.22001.40.camel@brick> References: <1207856648.22001.28.camel@brick> <20080410203708.GA28014@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080410203708.GA28014-6z/3iImG2C8G8FEW9MqTrA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Ralf Baechle Cc: linux-arch On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 21:37 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:44:08PM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > Btw, you may want to look at the current MIPS implementation of > get_unaligned and put_unaligned. It's pure C and at least on MIPS it > produces somewhat shorter code and the source is definately much > shorter since it exploits the compiler's cleverness. > > Ralf Yeah, the only reason I did not is that many arches intentionally bug during the linking process when the argument size is not 1,2,4,8 whereas some do not...it would be nice to get a decision on what is the right answer. Also, I saw the mips version, what would you think of moving to the no_builtin_memcpy version from my patchset...or just look at h3800, xtensa, or m32r arch implementations currently in tree. Cheers, Harvey From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.170.190]:46608 "EHLO rn-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753404AbYDJUnD (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:43:03 -0400 Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id v46so259996rnb.15 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] kernel: move arches that use the generic_le/be helpers From: Harvey Harrison In-Reply-To: <20080410203708.GA28014@linux-mips.org> References: <1207856648.22001.28.camel@brick> <20080410203708.GA28014@linux-mips.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:43:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1207860182.22001.40.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ralf Baechle Cc: linux-arch Message-ID: <20080410204302.q72lW7EVaLEuQEp08qYaNHP98Jw8TCk9mVINrriiY24@z> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 21:37 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:44:08PM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > Btw, you may want to look at the current MIPS implementation of > get_unaligned and put_unaligned. It's pure C and at least on MIPS it > produces somewhat shorter code and the source is definately much > shorter since it exploits the compiler's cleverness. > > Ralf Yeah, the only reason I did not is that many arches intentionally bug during the linking process when the argument size is not 1,2,4,8 whereas some do not...it would be nice to get a decision on what is the right answer. Also, I saw the mips version, what would you think of moving to the no_builtin_memcpy version from my patchset...or just look at h3800, xtensa, or m32r arch implementations currently in tree. Cheers, Harvey