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 <ben.hutchi...@codethink.co.uk> > 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 configurations define it to be 0. > > However several other architectures (conditionally) define > > CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, which seems to imply that > > NET_IP_ALIGN should be 0. > > > > Remove the overriding definitions for ppc64 and x86 and define > > NET_IP_ALIGN solely based on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchi...@codethink.co.uk> > > While this makes sense for arm64, I don't think it is appropriate for > ARM per se.
Agreed that this makes sense for arm64, and I'd be happy to take a patch defining it as 0 there. Will
