From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:36:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:36:43 -0500 Received: from obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.55]:4244 "EHLO obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:36:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 01:36:30 +0100 From: Ingo Oeser To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Endianness-aware mkcramfs Message-ID: <20011205013630.C717@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To: <3C0BD8FD.F9F94BE0@mvista.com> <3C0CB59B.EEA251AB@lightning.ch> <9uj5fb$1fm$1@cesium.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <9uj5fb$1fm$1@cesium.transmeta.com>; from hpa@zytor.com on Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:42:51AM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:42:51AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > As told above, it could be cleaner, but I don't know of a nice method of > > accessing byteorder dependent data through structures. > > This isn't the right way to deal with this. The right way to deal > with this is to get all systems to read cramfs the same way. Yes, from a CS point of view. But practically cramfs is created once to contain some kind of ROM for embedded devices. So if we never modify these data again, why not creating it in the required byte order? Why wasting kernel cycles for le<->be conversion? Just because it's more general? For writable general purpose file systems it makes sense, but to none of romfs, cramfs etc. So I would prefer the given patch. Regards Ingo Oeser -- Science is what we can tell a computer. Art is everything else. --- D.E.Knuth