01.04.2019, 13:11, "Michael Ellerman" <m...@ellerman.id.au>: > This looks OK. It's a bit of a pity to replace the 8-byte-at-a-time copy > with a byte-at-a-time copy, but I suspect it's insignificant compared to > the overhead of calling the comparison and swap functions. > > And we could always add a generic 8-byte-at-a-time swap function if it's > a bottleneck.
I am sorry, I forgot to quickly comment on your letter. Now (after George Spelvin's patches) the generic swap is able to use u64 or u32 if the alignment and size are divisible by 4 or 8, so we lose nothing here.
