[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:0.061 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site