linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] h8300: Change unaligned access to use packed struct implementation

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]

Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:02:14 +0400
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
Cc:	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] h8300: Change unaligned access to use packed
	struct implementation

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:38:22PM -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> There are only 3 arches that use the memmove-based implementation, there
> doesn't seem to be any obvious reason not to use the struct implementation.

1. Extensive use of "--- " area means changelogs are written badly.
2. Changing one of arch core header we can deduce from patch and this
   exactly what subject line says.
3. As such there is absolutely no changelog.

[goes into digging how all this byteorder and endian activity was
started]

> --- a/arch/h8300/include/asm/unaligned.h
> +++ b/arch/h8300/include/asm/unaligned.h

> -#include <linux/unaligned/be_memmove.h>
> +#include <linux/unaligned/be_struct.h>
--
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/