On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:31:32 -0600
Erik Jacobson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But it's rather a lot of churn for such a thing. Did you consider simply using
> > put_unaligned() against the specific offending field(s)?
>
> Hi. This was not considered.
>
> I wanted to give you some quick feedback, so I tried your suggestion in the
> fork path. It seemed to fix the problem as well.
OK.
> put_unaligned(timespec_to_ns(&ts), (__u64 *) &ev->timestamp_ns);
>
> Is what I tried.
>
> I'm on vacation tomorrow but on Thursday, if you like, I can whip up
> a patch that does this and test it more thoroughly. Is this the
> direction you prefer? What I did just now was really quick and dirty
> to see if it has a shot or not but it looks like put_unaligned will
> fix it too.
>
Well it's a one-liner and it makes it very clear what's going on. So
unless there's some undiscovered downside, yes, I think it's a good way to
go. It'll be an easier patch for the -stable guys to swallow too.
There's no particular hurry on it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
