Hi Stefan,
2009/11/24 Stefan Roese sr@denx.de:
Hi Wolfgang,
On Monday 23 November 2009 23:46:38 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Remy Bohmer,
In message 1256764421-27799-4-git-send-email-linux@bohmer.net you wrote:
The current generic code for handling unaligned access assumes that the processor can properly handle unaligned accesses itself. This is at least not the case for ARM, which results in runtime errors.
Rewrite it such that it works for ARM as well.
Signed-off-by: Remy Bohmer linux@bohmer.net
include/linux/unaligned/access_ok.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Applied, thanks.
This shouldn't have been applied. Remy did send a different version of this patch (according to my suggestion), which is already included:
commit 25793f76bf9a7be59c9415ef0f78d034e8d53dae Author: Remy Bohmer linux@bohmer.net Date: Thu Oct 29 12:29:37 2009 +0100
ARM: Use Linux version for unaligned access code
The asm-arm/unaligned.h includes linux/unaligned/access_ok.h This file is unsafe to be used on ARM, since it does an unaligned memory accesses which fails on ARM.
Lookin at Linux the basic difference seems to be the header "include/asm-arm/unaligned.h". The Linux version of "unaligned.h" does *not* include "access_ok.h" at all. It includes "le_byteshift.h" and "be_byteshift.h" instead.
Signed-off-by: Remy Bohmer linux@bohmer.net Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de
Remy, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
You are right. This patch should not have been applied. The other patch was better.
Kind regards,
Remy