Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:43583 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755514AbYAYVPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:15:12 -0500 From: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez To: Michael Buesch Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc7 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:11:44 -0800 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <200801251941.25310.mb@bu3sch.de> In-Reply-To: <200801251941.25310.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200801251311.45392.inaky@linux.intel.com> (sfid-20080125_211516_973895_A6A1C33B) Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 25 January 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > 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. Well, you forgot the point that maybe it is not that simple to get such a seemingly simple change into the firmware for a long list of reasons.