Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] introduce ARCH_CAN_UNALIGNED_ACCESS Kconfigsymbol

[Johannes Berg]

> 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...

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part