From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1MeFvw-0001IY-9d for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:16:36 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MeFvt-0001IM-Of for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:16:33 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MeFvo-0001GI-Kd for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:16:32 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49130 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MeFvo-0001GF-Gk for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:16:28 -0400 Received: from c60.cesmail.net ([216.154.195.49]:26994) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MeFvo-0006qI-8R for grub-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:16:28 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO smtprelay2.cesmail.net) ([192.168.1.112]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2009 18:16:19 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.22] (static-72-92-88-10.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [72.92.88.10]) by smtprelay2.cesmail.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B654834C6A for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:31:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Pavel Roskin To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: References: <1250287249.8137.65.camel@mj> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:16:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1250806584.2668.61.camel@mj> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. Subject: Re: [PATCH] Split big and little endian BeFS and AtheFS X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:16:34 -0000 On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 12:05 +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > > I'm fine with the split, but please use something more descriptive than > > U16, U32 and U64. Maybe fs_to_cpu16() etc. > > > U* was here before me but here is a patch w/o them Sorry, I didn't realize that. Then maybe it would be better to apply that part separately after the split. Please define macros with arguments. It makes the code more readable. Please don't introduce excessively long lines in *.rmk files. Newlines are cheap :-) I don't think we should rename "byte_order" to "unused". Just because we doesn't use it now to determine the endianess, it doesn't mean that the field becomes meaningless. We may want to check it in the future. There are other fields in the superblock that we don't use, such as "flags", yet we don't rename them to "unusedN". Apart from that, I'm fine with the patch. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin