Re: FRV/ARM unaligned access question

[Russell King]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:36:19AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 08:35 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:13AM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > > I noticed that frv/arm are the only two arches that currently use open-coded
> > > byteshifting routines for both the cpu endianness and the other endianness
> > > whereas just about all the other arches use a packed-struct version for the
> > > cpu-endian and then the byteshifting versions (lifted from arm) for the other
> > > endianness.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I think you're mistaken.  I've looked at x86, m68k and
> > parisc, and they all use assembly for their swab functions in
> > asm/byteorder.h.
> > 
> 
> Sorry, not talking about byteorder at the moment, talking about
> unaligned.h.

At the moment, I've no idea what effect it'll have.  I'd need to run
some tests to discover what the effect will be.  Not sure when I'll
get around to that.

If someone else can be found to evaluate what the effect would be...

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/