linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:21:06 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE_ORDER

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:10:55 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se> wrote:

> Linux does not define __BYTE_ORDER in its endian header files
> which makes some header files bend backwards to get at the
> current endian. Lets #define __BYTE_ORDER in big_endian.h/litte_endian.h
> to make it easier for header files that are used in user space too.

I don't get it.  Why not nuke __BYTE_ORDER altogether and do `#ifdef
__LITTLE_ENDIAN' and `#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN' everywhere?

--
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/