Return-path: Received: from vs166246.vserver.de ([62.75.166.246]:60199 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751747AbYAYSmw (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:42:52 -0500 From: Michael Buesch To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc7 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:41:25 +0100 Cc: Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200801251921.48862.mb@bu3sch.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200801251941.25310.mb@bu3sch.de> (sfid-20080125_184255_311061_2C7D4C5E) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 25 January 2008 19:34:46 Linus Torvalds wrote: > My attitude is: CPU's that do unaligned accesses right are the *good* > CPU's. We should encourage them, and put the onus of being crap on the > ones that are crap, rather than penalizing the ones that aren't. I absolutely agree. But as this can get fixed with _no_ performance loss at all inside of the firmware (and who if not intel can change stuff in their firmware?), I think this warning is in fact valid. > In other words, we should use "get_unaligned()". So we should put get_unaligned() into the whole networking stack below wireless and penalize everybody, even gigabit-ethernet? -- Greetings Michael.