[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29495f1d0807251122q1f757fbcwd7d793081915957a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:22:22 -0700
From: "Nish Aravamudan" <nish.aravamudan@...il.com>
To: "Harvey Harrison" <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] byteorder: force in-place endian conversion to always evaluate args
On 7/25/08, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com> wrote:
> David Miller reported breakage in ide when the in-place byteorder helpers
> were used as the macros do not always evaluate their args which led to
> an infinite loop.
>
> Just make them functions to ensure they always do so.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
> ---
> include/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> include/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h b/include/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h
> index 961ed4b..b53ccd0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h
> +++ b/include/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h
> @@ -88,18 +88,54 @@ static inline __u16 __be16_to_cpup(const __be16 *p)
> {
> return (__force __u16)*p;
> }
> -#define __cpu_to_le64s(x) __swab64s((x))
> -#define __le64_to_cpus(x) __swab64s((x))
> -#define __cpu_to_le32s(x) __swab32s((x))
> -#define __le32_to_cpus(x) __swab32s((x))
> -#define __cpu_to_le16s(x) __swab16s((x))
> -#define __le16_to_cpus(x) __swab16s((x))
> -#define __cpu_to_be64s(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define __be64_to_cpus(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define __cpu_to_be32s(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define __be32_to_cpus(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define __cpu_to_be16s(x) do {} while (0)
> -#define __be16_to_cpus(x) do {} while (0)
> +
> +static inline void __cpu_to_le64s(__u64 *p)
> +{
> + __swab64s(x);
> +}
Shouldn't all the x's in the function bodies be p's? And I thought
David already posted a macro version of this change along the lines of
hpa's reply?
Thanks,
Nish
--
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