From: Ben Hutchings
> Sent: 04 October 2018 18:37
>
> 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 b
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
> 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
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
> 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
(+ Arnd but really)
On 4 October 2018 at 19:43, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (+ Arnd, Russell, Catalin, Will)
>
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:36, Ben Hutchings
> 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 unali
(+ Arnd, Russell, Catalin, Will)
On 4 October 2018 at 19:36, Ben Hutchings 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
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
