Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:40565 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752323AbYAYSg2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:36:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:34:46 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Michael Buesch cc: Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc7 In-Reply-To: <200801251921.48862.mb@bu3sch.de> Message-ID: (sfid-20080125_183632_781077_D7A7847E) References: <200801251723.58891.mb@bu3sch.de> <200801251921.48862.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Michael Buesch wrote: > > I'm not sure what's so hard about adding this trivial fix to the firmware. > The _fact_ that this warning triggered for lots of drivers means that > developers are not aware of the problem. So why should we go on hiding bugs > that are _trivial_ to fix? .. mainly because I don't think it's a bug in the network driver. It really sounds like you're creating a warning for a bug in the wireless infrastructure, and then trying to blame the drivers that don't agree with that warning being valid in the first place. > I absolutely hate the attitude "The problem does not happen on most > of the stuff intel uses, so they don't need to fix this". That's not *my* attitude at least. 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. In other words, we should use "get_unaligned()". Linus