Re: [PATCH] m68k: Use generic strncpy_from_user(), strlen_user(), and strnlen_user()

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Philippe De Muyter <phdm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:33:36PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Do we also want
>>
>> Â Â select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if (!COLDFIRE && !M68000)
>
> Sorry, I did not follow what happened to unaligned accesses, but
> CPU32 family (at least 68340) crashes on unaligned accesses.

We don't seem to have CONFIG_M68340 in arch/m68k/Kconfig.cpu?
But Freescale's website confirms both 68340 and 68360 are CPU32.

arch/m68k/include/asm/unaligned.h assumes CPU32 (CONFIG_MCPU32)
can do unaligned accesses:

#if defined(CONFIG_COLDFIRE) || defined(CONFIG_M68000)
#include <linux/unaligned/be_struct.h>
#include <linux/unaligned/le_byteshift.h>
#include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>

#define get_unaligned   __get_unaligned_be
#define put_unaligned   __put_unaligned_be

#else
/*
 * The m68k can do unaligned accesses itself.
 */
#include <linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>
#include <linux/unaligned/generic.h>

#define get_unaligned   __get_unaligned_be
#define put_unaligned   __put_unaligned_be

#endif

Is this wrong?

However, for CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS,
the question is not whether unaligned accesses are supported, but
whether they are more efficient than byte copies when copying larger blocks.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

            Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/