From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE_ORDER
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:51:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100324115112.07ce4807.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10f740e81003241137y382d155fnb777344d3af25f03@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:37:36 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 19:21, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:10:55 +0100
> > Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se> wrote:
> >
> >> Linux does not define __BYTE_ORDER in its endian header files
> >> which makes some header files bend backwards to get at the
> >> current endian. Lets #define __BYTE_ORDER in big_endian.h/litte_endian.h
> >> to make it easier for header files that are used in user space too.
> >
> > I don't get it. __Why not nuke __BYTE_ORDER altogether and do `#ifdef
> > __LITTLE_ENDIAN' and `#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN' everywhere?
>
> Because in userspace the convention is that
> 1. _both_ __LITTLE_ENDIAN and __BIG_ENDIAN are defined,
> 2. you have to test for e.g. __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN.
umph. We don't _have_ to copy userspace, and removing __BYTE_ORDER
altogether makes the kernel cleaner and simpler.
But if we did that, we shouldn't have used the same symbols as
userspace. Sigh.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-24 18:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-17 18:10 [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE_ORDER Joakim Tjernlund
2010-03-24 18:21 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-24 18:37 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2010-03-24 18:51 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-03-24 18:53 ` David Daney
2010-03-24 21:55 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2010-03-24 21:45 ` Joakim Tjernlund
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=20100324115112.07ce4807.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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.