linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubi: kill homegrown endian macros

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070518083835.GX4095@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 18 May 2007 09:38:35 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...dex.ru>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, dedekind@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubi: kill homegrown endian macros

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:58:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> >BTW, you can simply typedef __be16 ubi16_t; etc. and define conversion
> >functions as cpu_to_ubi16(x) being (__force ubi16_t)cpu_to_be16(x), etc.
> >
> >sparse will do all checks just fine, you still have bitwise operations
> >(might or might be not relevant in your case) and for gcc it simply
> >becomes __be16, etc - i.e. an integer type.
> 
> Err, what is the benefit of it? If we relied on sparce, why not would we be
> just using __be16 directly?

Because you might legitimately want your type to be *not* mixed with whatever
other big-endian 16bit types you have out there?
-
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/