Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: kill homegrown endian macros
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@infradead.org>
Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070517102931.6bbbad1a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20070517143200.GA30850@lst.de>
	 <1179413443.3642.49.camel@sauron> <20070517145653.GA968@lst.de>
	 <1179414590.3642.69.camel@sauron>
	 <20070517102931.6bbbad1a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:46:46 +0300
Message-Id: <1179424006.3642.84.camel@sauron>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1261
Lines: 31

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> umm..  I'd say what you've done in there is an improvement to the exiting
> stuff: getting gcc to check it is better than having to use sparse.
> 
> I'd have expected gcc to generate poorer code with your approach but I'm
> showing zero text size changes from Christoph's patch (gcc-4.1 and
> gcc-3.4.5).
> 
> So I wouldn't be averse to creating a new, generic, kernel-wide alternative
> to the existing __be32/__le32/etc code.  It is an improvement.
> 
> We could conceivably simply switch the existing stuff to use structs, but
> quite a lot of code assumes that cpu_to_foo32(0) == 0 and just does
> open-coded assigments of zero.  They'd need fixups.

Andrew,

thanks for answer. I personally do not think this should be applied
before we have better __be32 and friends. Thus, if I can do so, I will
just sit and wait for your decision - whether you include this patch to
-mm or not :-) .

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/