From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:59:47 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCHWORK] 71715 -> Not applicable.
In-Reply-To: <201011181813.22996.vapier@gentoo.org>
References: <4CE59B4E.90804@free.fr>
	<201011181700.28016.vapier@gentoo.org>	<4CE5A6FD.8010702@free.fr>
	<201011181813.22996.vapier@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <4CE61253.8070709@free.fr>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Le 19/11/2010 00:13, Mike Frysinger a ?crit :
> On Thursday, November 18, 2010 17:21:49 Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Besides, about half the archs do not use asm-generic/unaligned, and half
>> do
>
> that's because half the arches implemented unaligned.h whilst only thinking of
> themselves.  the other half benefited from my work of thinking of everyone.
>
>> a resubmit on the list will be the occasion
>
> i dont use/care about arm.  i wrote the patch because i wanted to be nice.  if
> you cant be bothered to clean up arm cruft, then feel free to mark the patch
> as "pending due to maintainer laziness".
>
>> for example, to discuss whether all arches should use it.
>
> all arches should use it.  whether the maintainers can be bothered to fix
> their headers is a different question.
> -mike

My question was about the technical merits of the patch: why should all 
arches use it? What does it improve at a performance, maintenability, or 
other technical level ?

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.