On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:21:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
quoted text
> 
> > 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@tuxdriver.com
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/