On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 11:39:56AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 07:32:52PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > as discussed in "m_pullup alingment crash armv7 sparc64", at worst it
> > doesnt hurt to have m_pullup maintain the data alignment of payloads,
> > and at best it
On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 07:32:52PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> as discussed in "m_pullup alingment crash armv7 sparc64", at worst it
> doesnt hurt to have m_pullup maintain the data alignment of payloads,
> and at best it will encourage aligned loads even if the arch allows
> unaligned accesses.
as discussed in "m_pullup alingment crash armv7 sparc64", at worst it
doesnt hurt to have m_pullup maintain the data alignment of payloads,
and at best it will encourage aligned loads even if the arch allows
unaligned accesses. aligned loads are faster than unaligned.
ok?
Index: uipc_mbuf.c
