Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:53:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:36 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> >
> > When removing some dead big endian checks in the RISC-V code Nick
> > suggested that we should have some generic sanity checks.  I don't think
> > we should have thos inside the RISC-V code, but maybe it might make
> > sense to have these in the generic byteorder headers.  Note that these
> > are UAPI headers and some compilers might not actually define
> > __BYTE_ORDER__, so we first check that it actually exists.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr>
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> Extra checking like this is good in general, but I'm not sure I see
> exactly what kind of issue one might expect to prevent with this:

I'm personally not worried at all. Just trying to respond to Nicks
review comment and make it reasonable generic if we have to have these
checks at all.  I personally would be ok without them, I just don't
want them hidden somewhere in the RISC-V code (RISC-V is always little
endian at least right now).