On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 11:38 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varad...@oracle.com> > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:01:34 +0200 > > > On 07/18/2015 08:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > >> It seems that this code has had unaligned accesses > >> on this field even before compare_ether_addr was > >> converted to ether_addr_equal. > >> > >> Is sparc64 the only one that emits / ratelimits that > >> unaligned access message? I looked a little, but I > >> didn't find a fixup message when MIPS does unaligned > >> accesses. Are all the other arches silent when > >> fixing up unaligned accesses? Maye adding a generic > >> debug only ratelimited message might help remove > >> more of these. As it's not fatal, naybe the sparc64 > >> message should be KERN_DEBUG/pr_debug. > > > > I'm confused, are we suggesting that we "fix" the unaligned > > access by snuffing out the message that complains loudly and correctly > > about it? > > > > See also: large block comment above __pksb_trim > > about correctly using skb_reserve(). Evidently not being > > correctly done for the IPv6-vxlan code path (and possibly > > for other encaps too?) > > We should fix the unaligned accesses, rather than quiet the > warning.
Definitely so, the question I have is whether or not the the message should be able to be silenced, not just ratelimited. I think there are likely to be occasions when, given arbitrary protocol stacking, unaligned accesses are unavoidable. Perhaps batman might have this as an actual issue. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
