| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <470694E0.7030408@freescale.com> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:47:44 -0500 From: Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com> To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: __LITTLE_ENDIAN vs. __LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Bit representation is left to the CPU, so 1 << 1 will always be 2, > regardless of whether the byte, when sent out to the network, > is 01000000 or 00000010. Endianess becomes important as soon > as the packet is on the network, of course. Well yes, that's why I'm asking. I'm not concerned about data from just the CPU's perspective. I'm writing a driver that talks to hardware that has a shift register. The register can be shifted either left or right, so all the bits obviously have to be in order, but it can be either order. What I want to do is to have the driver detect when byte-endianness doesn't match bit-endianness when it writes the the word to a memory-mapped device. I think I can do that like this: #if (defined(LITTLE_ENDIAN) && defined(BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)) || (defined(BIG_ENDIAN) && defined(LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)) #error "This CPU architecture is not supported" #endif -- Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale - 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