[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100324115112.07ce4807.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:51:12 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE_ORDER
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:37:36 +0100
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 19:21, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Because in userspace the convention is that
> 1. _both_ __LITTLE_ENDIAN and __BIG_ENDIAN are defined,
> 2. you have to test for e.g. __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN.
umph. We don't _have_ to copy userspace, and removing __BYTE_ORDER
altogether makes the kernel cleaner and simpler.
But if we did that, we shouldn't have used the same symbols as
userspace. Sigh.
--
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