On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 07:53:21AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> I'm not an ARM expert, so I don't know if ARM should use the >>> asm-generic implementations, or just use __get_user/__put_user in all >>> cases. I've CC'd rmk. >> >> Why do we have uaccess-unaligned.h ? Normally, these kinds of things >> are spawned by architectures which have problems with unaligned accesses, >> ARM being one of them, but afaik we've never need this. >> >> With the kernel-side trapping of unaligned accesses on older hardware, >> we've always dealt with the normal accessor faulting. >> >> From what I can tell in the git history, these unaligned put_user and >> get_user have existed all the way back to the dawn of git use. >> >> Can someone enlighten me why we have them? I somehow fail at email and dropped Russell from CC on accident. Sigh. > So while that gets sorted out, would it be safe to just do as Geert > did on m68k and put: > > #define __put_user_unaligned(x, ptr) __put_user((x), (ptr)) > > in arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h, and let the normal accessors and > kernel-side trapping deal with things? I'm thinking that's a local > fix until something gets sorted upstream, but I don't want to do it if > it's going to break things. > > josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
