Searched hist:"7 e75bf3f" (Results 1 – 1 of 1) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | disk-io.c | 7e75bf3f Fri Mar 18 17:56:43 CDT 2011 David Sterba <dave@jikos.cz> btrfs: properly access unaligned checksum buffer
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:56:53AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Thanks for fielding this one. Does put_unaligned_le32 optimize away on
> platforms with efficient access? It would be great if we didn't need
> the #ifdef.
(quicktest: assembly output is same for put_unaligned_le32 and direct
assignment on my x86_64)
I was originally following examples in
Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt. From other code it seems to me that
the define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is intended for larger
portions of code. Macros/wrappers for {put,get}_unaligned* are chosen via
arch/<arch>/include/asm/unaligned.h accordingly, therefore it's safe to use
put_unaligned_le32 without the ifdef.
dave
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
7e75bf3f Fri Mar 18 17:56:43 CDT 2011 David Sterba <dave@jikos.cz> btrfs: properly access unaligned checksum buffer
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:56:53AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Thanks for fielding this one. Does put_unaligned_le32 optimize away on
> platforms with efficient access? It would be great if we didn't need
> the #ifdef.
(quicktest: assembly output is same for put_unaligned_le32 and direct
assignment on my x86_64)
I was originally following examples in
Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt. From other code it seems to me that
the define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is intended for larger
portions of code. Macros/wrappers for {put,get}_unaligned* are chosen via
arch/<arch>/include/asm/unaligned.h accordingly, therefore it's safe to use
put_unaligned_le32 without the ifdef.
dave
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|