Re: [PATCH 3/4] xtensa: Change unaligned access to use packed struct implementation

[Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>]

Hi Harvey,

Please allow me a couple of days to look into it. I don't know the 
historic reasons why the memmove variant was chosen.

Thanks,
-Chris


Harvey Harrison wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> ---
> There are only 3 arches that use the memmove-based implementation, there
> doesn't seem to be any obvious reason not to use the struct implementation.
> 
> Chris?
> 
>  include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h b/include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h
> index 8f3424f..1a242b2 100644
> --- a/include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h
> +++ b/include/asm-xtensa/unaligned.h
> @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@
>  #define _ASM_XTENSA_UNALIGNED_H
>  
>  #ifdef __XTENSA_EL__
> -# include <linux/unaligned/le_memmove.h>
> +# include <linux/unaligned/le_struct.h>
>  # include <linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h>
>  # include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
>  # define get_unaligned	__get_unaligned_le
>  # define put_unaligned	__put_unaligned_le
>  #elif defined(__XTENSA_EB__)
> -# include <linux/unaligned/be_memmove.h>
> +# include <linux/unaligned/be_struct.h>
>  # include <linux/unaligned/le_byteshift.h>
>  # include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>
>  # define get_unaligned	__get_unaligned_be