From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mpls-qmqp-02.inet.qwest.net ([63.231.195.113])
	by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1KU4TN-0004v1-1E
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:56:29 +0000
Message-ID: <48A5D154.2000409@boundarydevices.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:56:20 -0700
From: Troy Kisky <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RESUBMIT] [PATCH] [MTD] NAND nand_ecc.c: rewrite for improved
	performance
References: <alpine.DEB.0.99.0807311031390.6774@frans-desktop>	<1218472202.2977.12.camel@pmac.infradead.org>	<ac9c93b10808120153m7435424ci3e49a70d3599cc06@mail.gmail.com>	<1218535872.2977.133.camel@pmac.infradead.org>	<alpine.DEB.0.99.0808142007340.6572@frans-desktop>	<48A48330.70105@boundarydevices.com>	<ac9c93b10808150141o6627e350pd23895d56426d59c@mail.gmail.com>	<1218789997.3184.64.camel@pmac.infradead.org>	<ac9c93b10808150223h6fb6032co61ffa7babba57884@mail.gmail.com>	<1218793271.3184.77.camel@pmac.infradead.org>	<ac9c93b10808150304k14f054faw402a7f67e868d2a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1218795140.3184.84.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <1218795140.3184.84.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 12:04 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2008/8/15, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>:
>>> On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 11:23 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>>  > 2008/8/15, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>:
>>>
>>> No need -- if you've thought about it and believe it should work, that's
>>>  probably enough. I just saw some 'unsigned long' data types, which are
>>>  going to have a different size between 32-bit and 64-bit systems, and
>>>  wondered if that would introduce differences.
>> I was unaware of that. For me unsigned long is more or less a synonym
>> for 32 bit. Maybe I'm just getting too old :-(
>> Anyway, if you have a suggestion for a better type, I'll happily change things.
>> Would uint32_t be better?
> 
> If it needs to be 32-bit, then yes -- uint32_t is the correct type to
> use.
> 
> If 64-bit is OK, then 'unsigned long' is likely to be more efficient on
> some platforms.
> 

You might also test it on a big endian system to be safe.

Troy