From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: cramfs in big endian Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:19:30 -0800 Message-ID: <47361252.2060308@zytor.com> References: <200711062216.27156.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> <4731C308.8090008@slax.org> <200711072151.49032.lists-receive@programmierforen.de> <20071107224936.GA8517@infradead.org> <47350345.4010108@zytor.com> <20071110151322.GA21768@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andi Drebes , Tomas M , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:59589 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753603AbXKJUXE (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:23:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071110151322.GA21768@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 05:03:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Endian-independent code is slower than wrong-endian code, because of the >> necessary conditionals. Thus, you DO NOT WANT this(*). > > I'd prefer not to have it either. But a someone (pinhead) was smart > enough not to define an endianess for cramfs from the beginning we're > stuck with it. > I thought cramfs was "always" defined as littleendian? Either way... I thought the primary discussion was about squashfs. -hpa