On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 21:21:20PM +0800, Russell King wrote: >On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 08:53:36PM +0800, Abbott Liu wrote: >> Because in some architecture(eg. arm) instruction set, non-aligned >> access support is not very well, so 2 1-byte checks is more >> safer than 1 2-byte check. The impact on performance is small >> because 16-byte accesses are not too common. > >This is unnecessary: > >1. a load of a 16-bit quantity will work as desired on modern ARMs. >2. Networking already relies on unaligned loads to work as per x86 > (iow, an unaligned 32-bit load loads the 32-bits at the address > even if it's not naturally aligned, and that also goes for 16-bit > accesses.) > >If these are rare (which you say above - "not too common") then it's >much better to leave the code as-is, because it will most likely be >faster on modern CPUs, and the impact for older generation CPUs is >likely to be low. Thanks for your review. OK, I am going to remove this patch in the next version. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
