From: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE_ORDER
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:53:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BAA5F99.3050904@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10f740e81003241137y382d155fnb777344d3af25f03@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/24/2010 11:37 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven 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.
>
I have stumbled on this issue as well.
However, consider this:
If you make such a change, then you will start to see:
#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN
appearing in kernel source code. Do we want two different endian
checking idioms in the kernel? Or would it be just a single idiom, but
one that is different than the status quo?
The only time I can see that it makes a difference is if you want to
share things like driver source code files between in-kernel drivers and
userspace. A discussion of which, would probably provoke much discussion.
David Daney
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-24 18:53 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
2010-03-24 18:53 ` David Daney [this message]
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=4BAA5F99.3050904@caviumnetworks.com \
--to=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=Joakim.Tjernlund@transmode.se \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--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.