On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:46:46 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > umm.. I'd say what you've done in there is an improvement to the exiting > > stuff: getting gcc to check it is better than having to use sparse. > > > > I'd have expected gcc to generate poorer code with your approach but I'm > > showing zero text size changes from Christoph's patch (gcc-4.1 and > > gcc-3.4.5). > > > > So I wouldn't be averse to creating a new, generic, kernel-wide alternative > > to the existing __be32/__le32/etc code. It is an improvement. > > > > We could conceivably simply switch the existing stuff to use structs, but > > quite a lot of code assumes that cpu_to_foo32(0) == 0 and just does > > open-coded assigments of zero. They'd need fixups. > > Andrew, > > thanks for answer. I personally do not think this should be applied > before we have better __be32 and friends. Thus, if I can do so, I will > just sit and wait for your decision - whether you include this patch to > -mm or not :-) . > Drat, and here was I hoping I'd lured you into implementing the generic code. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
