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. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
