Marco Gerards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had a really quick look at your patches, especially the ext2fs > patch. I have a little (perhaps stupid) question about this patch. I > usually use htons ntos, etc. for handling endianess. Was there a > reason not to use these functions? I'm really happy to see those > improvements for endianess :). I still wonder if other parts of the > Hurd won't have these problems...
The ext2 file system uses little-endian order, whereas htons etc. convert from native to network (big-endian) byte-order. So using htons would give you exactly the wrong result. (Actually, I didn't even think of using htons, since I looked at the Linux code for ext2fs and copied the le**_to_cpu functions from there.) I haven't tried the other filesystems yet, but isofs and ufs might have the same problem. I don't know about fatfs; I see Marcus's implementation already uses endian-dependent functions for reading and writing, but I haven't tested it yet. > Could you please write ChangeLog entries. I know this is boring work, > but that makes the code easier to read and it is a requirement for > submition AFAIK. Hmm, I knew I forgot something... 8-) Thanks, I'll do that! Peter _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
