On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > I think you're semantically testing the wrong thing. > > > > It's not if unaligned accesses are supported, it's if they are > > efficient enough or not. > > > > For example, sparc64 fully handles unaligned accesses but taking the > > trap to fix it up is slow. So sparc64 "can" handle unaligned > > accesses, but whether we want to set this symbol or not is another > > matter. > > Yeah, good point. Should I rename it to HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > or similar? Or have it defined as some sort of number so you can make > actually make tradeoffs? Like Dave Woodhouse suggested at some point to > have get_unaligned() take an argument that indicates the probability... Ugh...that sounds like premature optimization to me... While I think Dave has a point, I don't think you should labor the word choice too much. Try to document it as clearly as possible and hope for the best -- I hear that the arch maintainers are top notch! :-) John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
