From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: add byteorder macros with alignment fixups Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:09:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20080320190953.GR10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1206034454.17059.4.camel@brick> <20080320182911.GQ10722@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1206038244.17059.7.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-netdev To: Harvey Harrison Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57774 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753909AbYCTTJ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:09:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1206038244.17059.7.camel@brick> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:37:24AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 18:29 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:34:14AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > A common pattern in the kernel (especially networking) is: > > > > > > le32_to_cpu(get_unaligned((__le32 *)x)); > > > > > > Repeat for various combinations of le/be and 64/32/16 bit. Add > > > a variant that operates on possibly unaligned pointers to > > > byteorder/generic.h > > > > ... and asm/unaligned.h has just acquired fuckloads of places including > > it indirectly. Not Nice(tm). > > Time for linux/unaligned.h? Er... And just how would that improve things?