Andrew Morton wrote on 2010/01/30 00:49:24:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:52:41 +0100
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Commit 6846ee5ca68d81e6baccf0d56221d7a00c1be18b made the
> > new optimized inflate only available on arch's that
> > define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. This
> > will agai
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:52:41 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Commit 6846ee5ca68d81e6baccf0d56221d7a00c1be18b made the
> new optimized inflate only available on arch's that
> define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. This
> will again enable the optimization for all arch's by
> by defining ou
Andrew Morton wrote on 2010/01/28 02:05:36:
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:19:59 +0100
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Commit 6846ee5ca68d81e6baccf0d56221d7a00c1be18b made the
> > new optimized inflate only available on arch's that
> > define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. This
> > fixes it
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:19:59 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Commit 6846ee5ca68d81e6baccf0d56221d7a00c1be18b made the
> new optimized inflate only available on arch's that
> define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. This
> fixes it by defining our own endian independent versions
> of unalign
>
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 2010/01/14
> 09:57:11:
> >
> >
> > > Seen it now as it is in Linus tree:
> > >
> > > 1) IMHO it would have been nicer to use #ifdef __KERNEL__
> > >instead of CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> > >as then arches that don't define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFIC
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 2010/01/14 09:57:11:
>
>
> > Seen it now as it is in Linus tree:
> >
> > 1) IMHO it would have been nicer to use #ifdef __KERNEL__
> >instead of CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> >as then arches that don't define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 14:27 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> It would probably be a good idea to redefine UP_UNALIGNED macro to
> do 2 byte accesses in the non CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
> case.
>
> I don't think I will revisit this any time soon so I figured I should
> mention it i
Benjamin Herrenschmidt 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 unalig
Benjamin Herrenschmidt 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 unalign
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 bac
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 14/01/2010 09:57:11:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH]: powerpc: Fix build breakage due to incorrect location
> ofautoconf.h
>
>
> > Seen it now as it is in Linus tree:
> >
> > 1) IMHO it would have been nicer to use #ifdef __KERNEL__
> >instead of CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_U
> Seen it now as it is in Linus tree:
>
> 1) IMHO it would have been nicer to use #ifdef __KERNEL__
>instead of CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
>as then arches that don't define CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS
>at all will never use the new optimization or was that what
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote on 13/01/2010 21:02:43:
>
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 12:54 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> > >
> > > BOOTCFLAGS += -I$(obj) -I$(srctree)/$(obj)
> > > -BOOTCFLAGS += -include include/linux/autoconf.h -Iarch/powerpc/include
> > > -BOOTCFLAGS += -Iinclude
> > > +BOOTCFLAG
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 12:54 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >
> > BOOTCFLAGS += -I$(obj) -I$(srctree)/$(obj)
> > -BOOTCFLAGS += -include include/linux/autoconf.h -Iarch/powerpc/include
> > -BOOTCFLAGS += -Iinclude
> > +BOOTCFLAGS += -include include/generated/autoconf.h
> > +BOOTCFLAGS += -I$(srctree
> How does this work for you?
>
>> From 044f40d169bf5fe189d5cb058f56b7cd72675ca4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joakim Tjernlund
> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:20:36 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix build breakage due to incorrect location of
> autoconf.h
>
>
From: Joakim Tjernlund
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:20:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] powerpc: Fix build breakage due to incorrect location of
autoconf.h
commit ac4c2a3bbe5db5fc570b1d0ee1e474db7cb22585 (zlib: optimize inffast when
copying direct from output) referenced include/linux/autoconf.h which
is no
Anton Blanchard wrote on 12/01/2010 03:21:51:
>
>
> commit ac4c2a3bbe5db5fc570b1d0ee1e474db7cb22585 (zlib: optimize inffast when
> copying direct from output) referenced include/linux/autoconf.h which
> is now called include/generated/autoconf.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard
> ---
>
> Index
Hi Anton,
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:21:51 +1100 Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> commit ac4c2a3bbe5db5fc570b1d0ee1e474db7cb22585 (zlib: optimize inffast when
> copying direct from output) referenced include/linux/autoconf.h which
> is now called include/generated/autoconf.h.
Even with this fix, you canno
commit ac4c2a3bbe5db5fc570b1d0ee1e474db7cb22585 (zlib: optimize inffast when
copying direct from output) referenced include/linux/autoconf.h which
is now called include/generated/autoconf.h.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard
---
Index: linux-cpumask/arch/powerpc/boot/Makefile
=
19 matches
Mail list logo
