On 11/14/2013 2:45 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:09:21 -0500 > Chris Metcalf <cmetc...@tilera.com> wrote: > >> - __u8 buffer[CN_PROC_MSG_SIZE]; >> + __u8 buffer[CN_PROC_MSG_SIZE] __aligned(8); >> - msg = (struct cn_msg *)buffer; >> + msg = buffer_to_cn_msg(buffer); >> ev = (struct proc_event *)msg->data; >> memset(&ev->event_data, 0, sizeof(ev->event_data)); > Why is memset(buffer,0,CN_PROC_MSG_SIZE) not acceptable?
That would be fine from a correctness point of view; I'm happy either way. My patch nominally has better performance, for what that's worth, since the memset() call is for a smaller range (24 bytes instead of 60). It also avoids the need for put_unaligned(), which even on platforms that allow unaligned stores can still be slower. I can certainly do a v2 with the larger memset() instead if that's the consensus. -- Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp. http://www.tilera.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
