From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: kernel unaligned accesses on IA64 in IDE Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:54:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20080822205431.GA5968@gollum.tnic> References: <20080819225606.GB22088@us.ibm.com> <20080822164538.GB9047@us.ibm.com> <9ea470500808221029l6bd79c62w4c06d948f962d95c@mail.gmail.com> <200808222036.00536.bzolnier@gmail.com> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA309EDE187@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <200808222036.m7MKa6bT008897@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com> Reply-To: petkovbb@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808222036.m7MKa6bT008897@agluck-lia64.sc.intel.com> Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Robin Holt , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Nishanth Aravamudan , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , FUJITA Tomonori List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:36:06PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > How about long instead of int. int leaves us with the possibility that > > something else will expect 8 byte alignment. > > How about this? > > Align __cmd to ward off kernel unaligned access consoles messages on > ia64 (and perhaps make an almost imperceptible performance improvement > on other architectures that can handle unaligned access, but do so > more slowly than aligned accesses). By the way, i've been wondering, this unaligned access breaking should have happened earlier, how did we miss that? Nish, Robin, can you see that in some older logs? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.