On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:32 -0600 Erik Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But it's rather a lot of churn for such a thing. Did you consider simply > > using > > put_unaligned() against the specific offending field(s)? > > Hi. This was not considered. > > I wanted to give you some quick feedback, so I tried your suggestion in the > fork path. It seemed to fix the problem as well. OK. > put_unaligned(timespec_to_ns(&ts), (__u64 *) &ev->timestamp_ns); > > Is what I tried. > > I'm on vacation tomorrow but on Thursday, if you like, I can whip up > a patch that does this and test it more thoroughly. Is this the > direction you prefer? What I did just now was really quick and dirty > to see if it has a shot or not but it looks like put_unaligned will > fix it too. > Well it's a one-liner and it makes it very clear what's going on. So unless there's some undiscovered downside, yes, I think it's a good way to go. It'll be an easier patch for the -stable guys to swallow too. There's no particular hurry on it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
