[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:57:15 +0200
From: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: marcel@...tmann.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
kkeil@...e.de
Subject: Re: mISDN still breaking the allmodconfig build...
David Miller writes:
> From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:03:04 +0200
>
> > > More fallout from the premature mISDN driver merge:
> > >
> > > drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:5255:2: error: #error "not
> > > running on big endian machines now"
> >
> > is that only the HFC driver or the whole mISDN stack?
> >
> > I know that the two old ISDN stacks where really bad on big endian,
> > but my assumption was that we did sort this out in the end.
>
> One of the two mISDN drivers uses the deprecated virt_to_bus()
> interface for handling DMA addresses (that doesn't even work on many
> x86 systems these days) and the other mISDN driver gives the above
> big-endian compile time error.
>
> In short, this driver was not ready for merging at all.
Why on earth does a generic (I hope) protocol driver (some ISDN
thingy in this case) care about endianess at all?
Or has things come to a "the world's an x86" ("the world's a VAX" for
old-timers but add 25+ years or so) situation where the majority of
coders don't even consider that machines might be different from what
they use? If so, a deep sigh of sadness.
(Not that I prefer a particular endianess. My point being that coders
shouldn't make endianess assumptions unless they're really^3 important.)>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists