Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:38:26 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Erik Jacobson <erikj@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net,
       matthltc@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] connector: Some fixes for ia64 unaligned access errors
Message-Id: <20061212183826.6edb3a3f.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20061213023132.GA29897@sgi.com>
References: <20061207232213.GA29340@sgi.com>
	<1165881166.24721.71.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20061212175411.GA20407@sgi.com>
	<20061212164504.d6f8a3cb.akpm@osdl.org>
	<20061213023132.GA29897@sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1274
Lines: 34

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:32 -0600
Erik Jacobson <erikj@sgi.com> wrote:

> > But it's rather a lot of churn for such a thing.  Did you consider simply using
> > put_unaligned() against the specific offending field(s)?
> 
> Hi.  This was not considered.
> 
> I wanted to give you some quick feedback, so I tried your suggestion in the
> fork path.  It seemed to fix the problem as well.

OK.

> put_unaligned(timespec_to_ns(&ts), (__u64 *) &ev->timestamp_ns);
> 
> Is what I tried.
> 
> I'm on vacation tomorrow but on Thursday, if you like, I can whip up
> a patch that does this and test it more thoroughly.  Is this the
> direction you prefer?  What I did just now was really quick and dirty
> to see if it has a shot or not but it looks like put_unaligned will
> fix it too.
> 

Well it's a one-liner and it makes it very clear what's going on.  So
unless there's some undiscovered downside, yes, I think it's a good way to
go.  It'll be an easier patch for the -stable guys to swallow too.

There's no particular hurry on it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/