| Message ID | alpine.LFD.2.10.1312171528130.7480@knanqh.ubzr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Nicolas, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:34:18PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Modern ARM CPUs can perform efficient unaligned memory accesses in > > hardware and this feature is relied up on by code such as the dcache > > word-at-a-time name hashing. > > > > This patch selects HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS for these cores and > > reworks the kconfig select logic for DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS to use the new > > symbol. > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > This symbol could be used in some more places too. For example this > would make the code a bit clearer: Well spotted. > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h > index 72abdc541f..12c3a5decc 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ > #include <asm/unified.h> > #include <asm/compiler.h> > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ < 6 > +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > #include <asm-generic/uaccess-unaligned.h> > #else > #define __get_user_unaligned __get_user The original patch is now queued, so we can add this hunk as a follow-up cleanup patch. I've got you as the author, but can I add your S-o-B please? Cheers, Will
On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:34:18PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > Modern ARM CPUs can perform efficient unaligned memory accesses in > > > hardware and this feature is relied up on by code such as the dcache > > > word-at-a-time name hashing. > > > > > > This patch selects HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS for these cores and > > > reworks the kconfig select logic for DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS to use the new > > > symbol. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > > > This symbol could be used in some more places too. For example this > > would make the code a bit clearer: > > Well spotted. > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h > > index 72abdc541f..12c3a5decc 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h > > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ > > #include <asm/unified.h> > > #include <asm/compiler.h> > > > > -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ < 6 > > +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS > > #include <asm-generic/uaccess-unaligned.h> > > #else > > #define __get_user_unaligned __get_user > > The original patch is now queued, so we can add this hunk as a follow-up > cleanup patch. I've got you as the author, but can I add your S-o-B please? Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> > > Cheers, > > Will >
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h index 72abdc541f..12c3a5decc 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/uaccess.h @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ #include <asm/unified.h> #include <asm/compiler.h> -#if __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ < 6 +#ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS #include <asm-generic/uaccess-unaligned.h> #else #define __get_user_unaligned __get_user