All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"<netdev@vger.kernel.org>" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:16:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005131601.GE14398@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9MBJ0w+23XMg+w_EYEf0Hx8dkW-w-rf4Bzu_c3GN_YiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:43:59PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (+ Arnd, Russell, Catalin, Will)
> 
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:36, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> > NET_IP_ALIGN is supposed to be defined as 0 if DMA writes to an
> > unaligned buffer would be more expensive than CPU access to unaligned
> > header fields, and otherwise defined as 2.
> >
> > Currently only ppc64 and x86 configurations define it to be 0.
> > However several other architectures (conditionally) define
> > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, which seems to imply that
> > NET_IP_ALIGN should be 0.
> >
> > Remove the overriding definitions for ppc64 and x86 and define
> > NET_IP_ALIGN solely based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
> 
> While this makes sense for arm64, I don't think it is appropriate for
> ARM per se.

Agreed that this makes sense for arm64, and I'd be happy to take a patch
defining it as 0 there.

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:16:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005131601.GE14398@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9MBJ0w+23XMg+w_EYEf0Hx8dkW-w-rf4Bzu_c3GN_YiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:43:59PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (+ Arnd, Russell, Catalin, Will)
> 
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:36, Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> > NET_IP_ALIGN is supposed to be defined as 0 if DMA writes to an
> > unaligned buffer would be more expensive than CPU access to unaligned
> > header fields, and otherwise defined as 2.
> >
> > Currently only ppc64 and x86 configurations define it to be 0.
> > However several other architectures (conditionally) define
> > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, which seems to imply that
> > NET_IP_ALIGN should be 0.
> >
> > Remove the overriding definitions for ppc64 and x86 and define
> > NET_IP_ALIGN solely based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
> 
> While this makes sense for arm64, I don't think it is appropriate for
> ARM per se.

Agreed that this makes sense for arm64, and I'd be happy to take a patch
defining it as 0 there.

Will

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-05 20:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-04 17:36 [RFC PATCH] skb: Define NET_IP_ALIGN based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS Ben Hutchings
2018-10-04 17:36 ` Ben Hutchings
2018-10-04 17:43 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-10-04 17:43   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-10-04 17:44   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-10-04 17:44     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-10-04 18:07   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-10-04 18:07     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-10-05 13:16   ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-10-05 13:16     ` Will Deacon
2018-10-05 16:59 ` David Laight
2018-10-05 16:59   ` David Laight

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181005131601.GE14398@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@lists.codethink.co.uk \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.