From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harvey Harrison Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/6] byteorder: add copy_{endian} helpers Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:39:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1212608385.6340.32.camel@brick> References: <1212428244.11008.40.camel@brick> <1212604681.6340.28.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.168]:63451 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759617AbYFDTjq (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:39:46 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so193793wfd.4 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:39:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-arch , Russell King , "tony.luck" On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:34 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 21:15 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote: > Sounds still a bit strange to me... > > As `get' and `put' have connotations of reference counts, what about > `load' and `store', e.g. `load_le32()' and `store_be16()'? > Well, load is covered by le16_to_cpup and friends. I could live with store_le16 though. I had originally added get_le16, put_le16 to match up with the get_unaligned_le16, put_unaligned_le16 functions. Maybe these would have been better as load_unaligned_* store_unaligned_* and during this change we could fix the argument order to be (ptr, val) allowing a gradual changeover without a flag day. Andrew? What do you think of load/store? Harvey