Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757924AbYJGXgR (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:36:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757323AbYJGXf5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:35:57 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.168]:26436 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756896AbYJGXf4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:35:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=YqASZOCPagUP+gn3PXYuq+xQOAG0YZn7eH0C4sPzlF2hhwA43crAvmzUXRhh93w3Zh WQjv1m0SH+gmtEKZERsm7AxpJnHsbkbxSZ1NHaEYow6oln3jDONKlXOric0WplpkEjO8 Ffg1BtfIwKkn9LAy/kammTObflWp57M+HBDQM= Subject: Re: [RFC] Normalizing byteorder/unaligned access API From: Harvey Harrison To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Andrew Morton , Al Viro , linux-arch , LKML , James Bottomley , linux-scsi , Boaz Harrosh In-Reply-To: <20081007232807.GL25780@parisc-linux.org> References: <1223416391.8195.22.camel@brick> <20081007232807.GL25780@parisc-linux.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:35:42 -0700 Message-Id: <1223422542.8195.42.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1178 Lines: 32 On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 17:28 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:53:11PM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > In addition, there are some subsystems (scsi) that are looking into some > > differently sized endian helpers (be24) and it may be worthwhile to have > > some agreement whether it is worth making them common infrastructure and > > whether they should present a similar API to the common byteorder/unaligned > > API. > > I still think SCSI should have its own accessors, even if they're > just wrappers around the common BE code. > I thought it was generally discouraged that subsystems have trivial wrappers like that, otherwise you wind up with: scsi_get_u32 usb_get_u32 v4l_get_u32 ... and so on, where as if they all used the common names, people more used to other areas of the kernel can still recognize what the code is doing without having the lookup another define. Just my 2 cents Harvey -- 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/