[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1224117171.5815.17.camel@brick>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:32:51 -0700
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparc64: Annotate pointers in PeeCeeI.c
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 17:23 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:19 -0700
>
> > This has no functional changes, but annotates the code to make
> > the endianness more clear. In addition, removes some of the only
> > users of cpu_to_le[16|32]p in the kernel.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
>
> Remind me what the problem is with cpu_to_{le,be}*()?
>
Nothing inherently wrong with them, other than it seems that nearly
every user (not this one) would be better served using the by-value
versions.
> The interface names define a direction, which in this case is
> "CPU endianness to BE/LE endianness". And that is exactly
> what is happening in the out*() routines.
>
> This aids comprehension of the code and is quite useful IMHO.
Yes, and even from that angle I think my patch is more instructive to
understanding the direction, compare for example in the same file
outsw versus outsl which this patch changes.
Harvey
--
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