[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0805161021450.25035-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:32:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
cc: Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>, Jie Zhang <jie.zhang@...log.com>,
Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, <david-b@...bell.net>,
<greg@...ah.com>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: file-storage.c use unaligned access helpers
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> Replace the put_be16/32 and get_be16/32 helpers with the
> common unaligned access routines. Note that these put_ helpers
> had the pointer/value parameter in the opposite order from the
> common version.
This is fine and it's what I requested. Still, it's not really the
best solution.
In many of the places where these helpers are used, we _know_ that the
buffers are in fact aligned properly. For example, in code like this:
> - put_be16(&buf[4], 0xffff);
> + put_unaligned_be16(0xffff, &buf[4]);
we know that buf is aligned. It would be great if there were helpers
which would allow us to do
put_be16(&buf[4], 0xffff);
instead of
* (__be16 *) &buf[4] = cpu_to_be16(0xffff);
They could also be used to clean up the disputed HCD code. Is this a
reasonable thing to ask for? A few simple, arch-independent macros
would be sufficient.
Alan Stern
--
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