From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc64: Annotate pointers in PeeCeeI.c
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:32:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1224117171.5815.17.camel@brick> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081015.172351.96225000.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:23 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:19 -0700
>
> > This has no functional changes, but annotates the code to make
> > the endianness more clear. In addition, removes some of the only
> > users of cpu_to_le[16|32]p in the kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
>
> Remind me what the problem is with cpu_to_{le,be}*()?
>
Nothing inherently wrong with them, other than it seems that nearly
every user (not this one) would be better served using the by-value
versions.
> The interface names define a direction, which in this case is
> "CPU endianness to BE/LE endianness". And that is exactly
> what is happening in the out*() routines.
>
> This aids comprehension of the code and is quite useful IMHO.
Yes, and even from that angle I think my patch is more instructive to
understanding the direction, compare for example in the same file
outsw versus outsl which this patch changes.
Harvey
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc64: Annotate pointers in PeeCeeI.c
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:32:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1224117171.5815.17.camel@brick> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081015.172351.96225000.davem@davemloft.net>
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:23 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:19 -0700
>
> > This has no functional changes, but annotates the code to make
> > the endianness more clear. In addition, removes some of the only
> > users of cpu_to_le[16|32]p in the kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
>
> Remind me what the problem is with cpu_to_{le,be}*()?
>
Nothing inherently wrong with them, other than it seems that nearly
every user (not this one) would be better served using the by-value
versions.
> The interface names define a direction, which in this case is
> "CPU endianness to BE/LE endianness". And that is exactly
> what is happening in the out*() routines.
>
> This aids comprehension of the code and is quite useful IMHO.
Yes, and even from that angle I think my patch is more instructive to
understanding the direction, compare for example in the same file
outsw versus outsl which this patch changes.
Harvey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-16 0:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-16 0:15 [PATCH] sparc64: Annotate pointers in PeeCeeI.c Harvey Harrison
2008-10-16 0:15 ` Harvey Harrison
2008-10-16 0:23 ` David Miller
2008-10-16 0:23 ` David Miller
2008-10-16 0:32 ` Harvey Harrison [this message]
2008-10-16 0:32 ` Harvey Harrison
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1224117171.5815.17.camel@brick \
--to=harvey.harrison@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.