On 31 March 2014 19:24, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:07:54AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 31 March 2014 11:59, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:24:04PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> On 28 March 2014 19:14, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thursday 27 March 2014, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> >> >> Switch the default unaligned access method to 'hardware implemented' >> >> >> if HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is set. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > >> >> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> >> >> > >> >> > Is this part of a longer series of patches? If so, please keep >> >> > the patch with the others and merge it through an appropriate >> >> > tree. >> >> > >> >> >> >> No, not really. I ran into the alignment issue while working on the >> >> arm64 crypto stuff, but it is unclear when that will be going in. >> >> >> >> > If not, I guess I'll have to send it myself, but it will be >> >> > the only asm-generic patch for the merge window ;-) >> >> >> >> Perhaps Catalin is interested in taking it, as arm64 is the only arch >> >> that defines HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS /and/ uses the >> >> asm-generic version of unaligned.h. >> >> >> >> @Catalin? >> >> >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=139594237116121&w=2 >> > >> > I can take this, providing it doesn't break anything else. I'll push it >> > to -next but won't send it with the first arm64 pull request. >> >> Yes, please. >> >> As I said, it can only affect arm64, and only users of >> get_unaligned_xx/put_unaligned_xx so it should be safe as far as I can >> tell. > > It actually affects arch/arm as well which selects > HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS for v6/v7 and uses the generic > unaligned.h > Oops, my bad. I did a quick 'find -name unaligned.h' but misread 'arc' for 'arm'. @Russell: ARM is a user of asm-generic/unaligned.h, and I proposed a patch to asm-generic that switches to unaligned accesses if HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is set by the arch. This should affect a fair amount of code living under net/ and drivers/ that don't test for the Kconfig symbol but expect get_unaligned_xx/put_unaligned_xx to turn into something suitable depending on the arch. Any objections? @Arnd: anyone else you feel should be cc'ed on this? Regards, Ard. -- 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
