From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754905Ab0JTS3E (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:29:04 -0400 Received: from alerce.vps.bitfolk.com ([212.13.194.134]:3714 "EHLO alerce.vps.bitfolk.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754094Ab0JTS3C (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:29:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:28:51 -0300 From: Leandro Lucarella To: Jon Maloy Cc: Neil Horman , David Miller , "paul.gortmaker@windriver.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.35/TIPC 2.0 ABI breaking changes Message-ID: <20101020182851.GP8781@llucax.com.ar> References: <20101018234547.GA5703@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20101019021657.GZ8781@llucax.com.ar> <20101019.011649.71113115.davem@davemloft.net> <20101019110452.GA14410@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20101019131936.GB8781@llucax.com.ar> <20101019201841.GC14410@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20101020172018.GN8781@llucax.com.ar> <0434463FDA60A94FA978ACA44617682DEE84668199@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20101020180454.GC14407@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <0434463FDA60A94FA978ACA44617682DEE846681B9@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0434463FDA60A94FA978ACA44617682DEE846681B9@EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Paranoid: Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jon Maloy, el 20 de octubre a las 14:10 me escribiste: > <...> > > > > > > Remember, permitting both is a superset of the current one > > (NBO only) > > > so it is fully backwards compatible. We break absolutly nothing by > > > permitting this. > > > > > Thats effectively reverting both our patches though, isn't it > > (not that I'm disagreeing with it, just looking for > > clarification). If we revert my patch and reintroduce the > > htohl mechanism which tracks endianess, we might as well > > revert the TIPC_SUB_SERVICE flag as well, yeah? > > Absolutely. I think it was a mistake to change that value. > But I don't think we need to reintroduce the htohl(). That > was just one way of doing it. If I understood your suggestion > from yesterday correctly you converted the whole message within > one if()clause, without any htohl(). I have have no problem with > that approach. There is a difference between both solutions, the htohl() version tracked the need for swap as a struct subscription member (which was used when sending back events). Neils patch doesn't do that tracking. I don't really know the implications of this, but maybe it would be a wise idea to stay in the safe side and revert both patches for now. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not a lie, if you believe it. -- George Constanza