linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] Introduce little endian bitops

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: <AANLkTimvUaGJ1eps5thgBUKjAjXuNN-6O4i-oBXZtQsd@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:50:39 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] Introduce little endian bitops

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Changing *_bit_le() to take "void *" instead of "unsigned long *"
> makes this patch series acceptable?

That would seem to at least make all the filesystem code happier, and
they can continue to do just something like

   #define ext2_set_bit __set_bit_le

(or whatever the exact sequence ends up being).

> Or do we also need to change *_bit_le() to handle unaligned address
> correctly?  (i.e. not only long aligned address but also byte aligned
> address)

No, I don't think that is required. We've never done it before, and
we've never had the type-safety for the little-endian (aka "minix")
bitops historically. So I'd just keep the status quo.

              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/