linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning in Linus'tree

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005260828320.3689@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 26 May 2010 08:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning in Linus'tree



On Wed, 26 May 2010, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> 
> If my suggestion above works, then one could start transforming current uses of __BYTE_ORDER,
> into similar constructs and once all are done, #define both __LITTLE_ENDIAN/__BIG_ENDIAN and
> move back to #if __BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN

No. Don't do it. Why the hell would we want to use the inferior model?

		Linus
--
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/