[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110530154357.GF2890@dhcp-172-31-194-241.cam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:43:57 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ext4: use little-endian bitops directly
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 08:49:43AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-05-30, at 7:49 AM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:
> > s/ext4_set_bit/__test_and_set_bit_le/
> > s/ext4_clear_bit/__test_and_clear_bit_le/
> > s/ext4_test_bit/test_bit_le/
> > s/ext4_find_first_zero_bit/find_first_zero_bit_le/
> > s/ext4_find_next_zero_bit/find_next_zero_bit_le/
> > s/ext4_find_next_bit/find_next_bit_le/
>
> I'm not souch in favor of making this change. One reason is the need
> for inconsistent test_bit_le() vs __test_and_set_bit_le()
> functions. I think this will make it more difficult to get the
> correct bit operations (I for one do not know the difference between
> the normal and __ versions without looking each time).
More to the point, what's the benefit of making this change?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists