Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Keith Busch' <kbusch@kernel.org>,
        "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>, "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
        "martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv4 3/8] asm-generic: introduce be48 unaligned accessors
Thread-Topic: [PATCHv4 3/8] asm-generic: introduce be48 unaligned accessors
Thread-Index: AQHYLzsopbrJlbfcckWY1hd2yhpRTqyubXZA
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 01:31:26 +0000
Message-ID: <2d8895d24fff46738f98c2dae74fa440@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20220303201312.3255347-1-kbusch@kernel.org>
 <20220303201312.3255347-4-kbusch@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220303201312.3255347-4-kbusch@kernel.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Keith Busch
> Sent: 03 March 2022 20:13
> 
> The NVMe protocol extended the data integrity fields with unaligned
> 48-bit reference tags.

If they are reference tags, are they only interpreted by the
sending system?
In which case they don't need to be big-endian since the
actual value doesn't really matter.

> Provide some helper accessors in preparation for these.
> 
...
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/unaligned.h b/include/asm-generic/unaligned.h
> index 1c4242416c9f..8fc637379899 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/unaligned.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/unaligned.h
> @@ -126,4 +126,30 @@ static inline void put_unaligned_le24(const u32 val, void *p)
>  	__put_unaligned_le24(val, p);
>  }
> 
> +static inline void __put_unaligned_be48(const u64 val, __u8 *p)
> +{
> +	*p++ = val >> 40;
> +	*p++ = val >> 32;
> +	*p++ = val >> 24;
> +	*p++ = val >> 16;
> +	*p++ = val >> 8;
> +	*p++ = val;
> +}

Although that matches __put_unaligned_be24() I think I'd use
array indexing not pointer increments.
The compiler will probably generate the same code anyway.

However it is probably better to do:
	put_unaligned_be16(val >> 32, p);
	put_unaligned_be32(val, p + 2);
so you get 2 memory accesses on x86 (etc) instead of 6.

Similarly for __get_unaligned_be48() where it is likely
so make a bigger difference.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)