[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC v2] introduce ARCH_CAN_UNALIGNED_ACCESS Kconfig symbol
    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 W. Linville

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-20 23:11    [W:0.022 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site