diff options
| author | David Sterba <dave@jikos.cz> | 2011-03-18 22:56:43 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | root <Chris Mason chris.mason@oracle.com> | 2011-03-28 05:37:36 -0400 |
| commit | 7e75bf3ff3a716d7b21d8fb43bf823115801c1e9 (patch) | |
| tree | 98509e562fe9577001f60e1035283c5cb4e076ea /fs/btrfs/ctree.c | |
| parent | db5b493ac78e46c7b6bad22cd25d8041564cd8ea (diff) | |
| download | kernel_samsung_smdk4412-7e75bf3ff3a716d7b21d8fb43bf823115801c1e9.zip kernel_samsung_smdk4412-7e75bf3ff3a716d7b21d8fb43bf823115801c1e9.tar.gz kernel_samsung_smdk4412-7e75bf3ff3a716d7b21d8fb43bf823115801c1e9.tar.bz2 | |
btrfs: properly access unaligned checksum buffer
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:56:53AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Thanks for fielding this one. Does put_unaligned_le32 optimize away on
> platforms with efficient access? It would be great if we didn't need
> the #ifdef.
(quicktest: assembly output is same for put_unaligned_le32 and direct
assignment on my x86_64)
I was originally following examples in
Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt. From other code it seems to me that
the define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS is intended for larger
portions of code. Macros/wrappers for {put,get}_unaligned* are chosen via
arch/<arch>/include/asm/unaligned.h accordingly, therefore it's safe to use
put_unaligned_le32 without the ifdef.
dave
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/btrfs/ctree.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions