[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2EF5ujv8S-PzYYBtNLEda+a_Wc6xhMign32QFnW4q1Ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 08:53:02 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nick Kossifidis <mick@....forth.gr>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:04 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:50:19PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > We did have some bugs in the past (~1-2 y/ago) but AFAIK they are all
> > > fixed now. These days I build most of my kernels with a bi-endian 64-bit
> > > toolchain, and switching endian without running `make clean` also works.
> >
> > For the record, yes, it turn out to be a problem in our code (a latent
> > bug). We actually used host (x86) gcc to build as-if ppc code that can
> > run on the host, so it defined neither LE no BE macros. It just
> > happened to work in the past :)
>
> So Nick was right and these checks actually are useful..
Yes, definitely. I wonder if we should also bring back the word size check
from include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h, which was disabled right
after I originally added that.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists