From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"<netdev@vger.kernel.org>" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:16:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005131601.GE14398@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9MBJ0w+23XMg+w_EYEf0Hx8dkW-w-rf4Bzu_c3GN_YiQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:43:59PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (+ Arnd, Russell, Catalin, Will)
>
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:36, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> > NET_IP_ALIGN is supposed to be defined as 0 if DMA writes to an
> > unaligned buffer would be more expensive than CPU access to unaligned
> > header fields, and otherwise defined as 2.
> >
> > Currently only ppc64 and x86 configurations define it to be 0.
> > However several other architectures (conditionally) define
> > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, which seems to imply that
> > NET_IP_ALIGN should be 0.
> >
> > Remove the overriding definitions for ppc64 and x86 and define
> > NET_IP_ALIGN solely based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
>
> While this makes sense for arm64, I don't think it is appropriate for
> ARM per se.
Agreed that this makes sense for arm64, and I'd be happy to take a patch
defining it as 0 there.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-05 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-04 17:36 [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS Ben Hutchings
2018-10-04 17:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-10-04 17:44 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-10-04 18:07 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-10-05 13:16 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-10-05 16:59 ` David Laight
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=20181005131601.GE14398@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).