Re: [PATCH 2/2] byteorder: eliminate pointer bytorder api

Harvey Harrison
2008-05-27T22:40:33Z

On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 14:17 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Wednesday 2008-05-21 00:30, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:19 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:15:25 -0700
> >>
> >> > Obviously I missed that part, my apologies. Would it be acceptable if,
> >> > taking the possibly arch-specific parts, moved the [endian]_to_cpup
> >> > name over to get_[endian]
> >>
> >> Why are we fiddling with interface names that have been fine for about
> >> 10 years?
>
> I suggest some comments be added to the cpu_to_*p() to specify their
> reason for being there (namely, speedups on some CPUs)

Agreed.

>
> >Saw a lot of (or similar in a private helper):
> >
> >*(__be32 *)ptr = cpu_to_be32(val);
> >
> >So I came up with
> >
> >void put_be32(val, ptr);
>
> I think it would be better to follow the common notation of the target
> being on the left side (like most intel asm commands and things like
> C's memcpy, etc)

I based this on the existing put_unaligned_be32 to have the same arg
order.

Cheers,

Harvey