From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: "Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>
Cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@kernel.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>,
"Frysinger, Michael" <Michael.Frysinger@analog.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB/ISP1760: Fix for unaligned exceptions
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:55:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4923F08A.3020702@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8A42379416420646B9BFAC9682273B6D069B15C2@limkexm3.ad.analog.com>
Hennerich, Michael wrote:
> I know the issue is originated in either RTL8150 set_registers or
> get_registers. We get some unaligned address from the stack to the
> ISP1760 priv_read/wite_copy.
>
> The RTL8150 driver does something like this:
>
> u8 data[3], tmp;
>
> data[0] = phy;
> data[1] = data[2] = 0;
> tmp = indx | PHY_READ | PHY_GO;
> i = 0;
>
> set_registers(dev, PHYADD, sizeof(data), data);
ach. So that's wrong anyway. There are arches which can't DMA stack
memory. So fixing this properly does not fix just your arch.
>>> I wonder if it's only us (NOMMU) seeing these odd aligned buffers?
>> Not sure. The only problem I have with this patch is that you might
>> cover bugs in drivers and you don't notice it anymore since you choose
>> "voluntary" the slow path.
>
> Well here I disagree, but I agree with the fact that there are buggy
> drivers.
>
> Since most processors running Linux do have unaligned access handling,
> this issue goes unnoticed for all of them. Believe me the penalty taken
> by any Processor doing this automatically and unnoticed is typically
> much higher than using get/put_unaligned.
Okay. A packed struct with a u8 followed by u16 which is required by the
spec can't be fixed. unaligned helper is the only solution. I agree here.
Allocating memory on the stack for a dma transfer is wrong.
On PowerPC and X86 get_unaligned() does not behave any different than a
normal dereference. So I doubt that there is a performance improvement.
> I'm tiered fixing all unaligned issues in drivers. It's a hassle getting
> them merged, since most people don't care. Having a workaround in a
> single place, the hcd driver is much easier.
Having a fixup in the exception handler like sparc does is probably little
slower than the fixup here. On the other hand you would not have to fix
unaligned access anymore.
>>> -Michael
Sebastian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-19 10:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-18 9:22 [PATCH] USB/ISP1760: Fix for unaligned exceptions Bryan Wu
2008-11-18 10:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2008-11-18 15:41 ` Hennerich, Michael
2008-11-19 9:18 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2008-11-19 10:30 ` Hennerich, Michael
2008-11-19 10:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4923F08A.3020702@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=Michael.Frysinger@analog.com \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=cooloney@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox