[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080520001345.GG17716@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 03:13:45 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] asm-generic/int-ll64.h: always provide __{s,u}64
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:51:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>>
>>> If it is going to be unconditionally offered, we could get rid of
>>> __BYTEORDER_HAS_U64__ as a next step. Unless there is something I've
>>> missed.
>>
>> Why do we need the byteorder headers in userspace at all?
>>
>
> Because Linux-specific software has depended on them for over 15 years
> (they are a much better API than anything POSIX provides.) We can't
> just yank them, and so it's better if they actually work.
>
> Yes, you can argue it should be glibc's job to provide them, but well,
> why duplicate work when we already have a nicely working set.
The worst thing is how many CONFIG_'s they currently leak to userspace.
And e.g. the versions in the x86 header are therefore not the fastest
ones (unless the userspace software #define's CONFIG_X86_BSWAP)...
> -hpa
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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