From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] tools: Revamp the unaligned endian access functions Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:04:05 +0200 Message-ID: <20140613200405.GA12362@ravnborg.org> References: <1402441994-16780-1-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> <20140611192111.GB16069@ravnborg.org> <5398CFA4.60202@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5398CFA4.60202@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org > >=20 > > A much simpler approach without any fallback to arch specific > > version etc. is everything we need. >=20 > It doesn't matter so much for things that are just done for the kerne= l > compile, no, but there are some tools that are built to be used as > standalone things, and it could matter there. Which tools require 452 lines of codes for a simple set of le/be wrappers? In other words - which tool will benefit from the addition speedup this amount of code gives? If I as a naive user look in unaligned.h I do not even see a prototype of the available methods. I am thrown to a directory with no less than 12 files. The le_direct.h=B4+ be_direct.h files seems unused. So again - why is it not enaough to provide only le_byteshift.h + the be counterpart? Sam From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from asavdk4.altibox.net ([109.247.116.15]:51827 "EHLO asavdk4.altibox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752101AbaFMUEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:04:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:04:05 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/10] tools: Revamp the unaligned endian access functions Message-ID: <20140613200405.GA12362@ravnborg.org> References: <1402441994-16780-1-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> <20140611192111.GB16069@ravnborg.org> <5398CFA4.60202@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5398CFA4.60202@zytor.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Message-ID: <20140613200405.8kxDGCJK4SDM0g2nT8UZnFp9KvrQAnzFaNOwlf9F8P0@z> > > > > A much simpler approach without any fallback to arch specific > > version etc. is everything we need. > > It doesn't matter so much for things that are just done for the kernel > compile, no, but there are some tools that are built to be used as > standalone things, and it could matter there. Which tools require 452 lines of codes for a simple set of le/be wrappers? In other words - which tool will benefit from the addition speedup this amount of code gives? If I as a naive user look in unaligned.h I do not even see a prototype of the available methods. I am thrown to a directory with no less than 12 files. The le_direct.h´+ be_direct.h files seems unused. So again - why is it not enaough to provide only le_byteshift.h + the be counterpart? Sam