From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: Move arches to use common unaligned access Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:11:28 +0100 Message-ID: <15208.1207908688@redhat.com> References: <1207885132.22001.85.camel@brick> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1207885132.22001.85.camel@brick> Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Harvey Harrison Cc: dhowells-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-arch , Linus Torvalds Harvey Harrison wrote: > -#ifndef _ASM_UNALIGNED_H > -#define _ASM_UNALIGNED_H > - > +#ifndef _ASM_FRV_UNALIGNED_H_ > +#define _ASM_FRV_UNALIGNED_H_ Why? > - * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memcpy. > + * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memmov. That's memmove, not memmov. Any why memmove, not memcpy? Is __tmp likely to overlap with *ptr? Also, for FRV, I think calling memmove/memcpy for MMU kernels may be the wrong thing to do... I'm sort of leaning towards doing the same thing as NOMMU kernels and just using your inline ones. The advantage of the inline ones is that they are quicker and probably involve fewer instructions executed; whereas using memcpy/memmove may end up with smaller, but slower code. Hmmm... Maybe key on CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE? David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:32850 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757449AbYDKKLf (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:11:35 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1207885132.22001.85.camel@brick> References: <1207885132.22001.85.camel@brick> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: Move arches to use common unaligned access Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:11:28 +0100 Message-ID: <15208.1207908688@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Harvey Harrison Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-arch , Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <20080411101128.mNMszVjBlYKh6BRLt7MXcTLnyHj6Vtwdse41AUHlctY@z> Harvey Harrison wrote: > -#ifndef _ASM_UNALIGNED_H > -#define _ASM_UNALIGNED_H > - > +#ifndef _ASM_FRV_UNALIGNED_H_ > +#define _ASM_FRV_UNALIGNED_H_ Why? > - * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memcpy. > + * impractical. So, now we fall back to using memmov. That's memmove, not memmov. Any why memmove, not memcpy? Is __tmp likely to overlap with *ptr? Also, for FRV, I think calling memmove/memcpy for MMU kernels may be the wrong thing to do... I'm sort of leaning towards doing the same thing as NOMMU kernels and just using your inline ones. The advantage of the inline ones is that they are quicker and probably involve fewer instructions executed; whereas using memcpy/memmove may end up with smaller, but slower code. Hmmm... Maybe key on CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE? David