On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:46:46 +0300
Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > umm.. I'd say what you've done in there is an improvement to the exiting
> > stuff: getting gcc to check it is better than having to use sparse.
> >
> > I'd have expected gcc to generate poorer code with your approach but I'm
> > showing zero text size changes from Christoph's patch (gcc-4.1 and
> > gcc-3.4.5).
> >
> > So I wouldn't be averse to creating a new, generic, kernel-wide alternative
> > to the existing __be32/__le32/etc code. It is an improvement.
> >
> > We could conceivably simply switch the existing stuff to use structs, but
> > quite a lot of code assumes that cpu_to_foo32(0) == 0 and just does
> > open-coded assigments of zero. They'd need fixups.
>
> Andrew,
>
> thanks for answer. I personally do not think this should be applied
> before we have better __be32 and friends. Thus, if I can do so, I will
> just sit and wait for your decision - whether you include this patch to
> -mm or not :-) .
>
Drat, and here was I hoping I'd lured you into implementing the generic
code.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
