From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC] Normalizing byteorder/unaligned access API Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:28:07 -0600 Message-ID: <20081007232807.GL25780@parisc-linux.org> References: <1223416391.8195.22.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:52936 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754392AbYJGX2Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:28:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1223416391.8195.22.camel@brick> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Harvey Harrison Cc: Andrew Morton , Al Viro , linux-arch , LKML , James Bottomley , linux-scsi , Boaz Harrosh On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 02:53:11PM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > In addition, there are some subsystems (scsi) that are looking into some > differently sized endian helpers (be24) and it may be worthwhile to have > some agreement whether it is worth making them common infrastructure and > whether they should present a similar API to the common byteorder/unaligned > API. I still think SCSI should have its own accessors, even if they're just wrappers around the common BE code. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."