Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 14/01/2010 10:43:44:
> On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 10:12 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > No, that was on purpose. If an arch doesn't have efficient unaligned
> > > accesses, then they should not use the optimization since it will
> > result
> > > in a lot of unaligned accesses :-) In which case they are better off
> > > falling back to the old byte-by-byte method.
> >
> > Not quite, it is only 1 of 4 accesses that uses unaligned and
> > that accesses is only unaligned 50% in average, it might still
> > be faster. We will never know now.
>
> Why ? If you think it's a win, then it's easy to make a patch to turn
> it to __KERNEL__ and ask some people from ARM and MIPS or even sparc
> land for example to give it a spin. If it's indeed a win, then submit it
> to Linus and/or Andrew and there's no reason for it not to go in.
>
> I simply took a more conservative approach for post -rc4
Perhaps for the best this late. I will just leave it as is. If ARM/MIPS et. all
wants, they can test it whenever they want.
Jocke
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
