Vince Weaver [vi...@deater.net] wrote: | On Sat, 10 Aug 2013, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: | | > | > include/uapi/linux/perf_event.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | > 1 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) | | > +#define __PERF_LE 1234 | > +#define __PERF_BE 4321 | > + | > +#if defined(__KERNEL__) | | I could be wrong, but I thought files under uapi weren't supposed to | contain __KERNEL__ code. Wasn't that the whole point of uapi? | | Also having the perf_event interface depend on endianess just seems like a | complicated mess. Can't we just declare the interface to be a certain | endianess and have the kernel byte-swap as necessary?
Except for the __KERNEL__ check, it looked like this approach would keep the kernel and user code same. Would it complicate user space ? I tried to avoid the __KERNEL__ check hack, but like I tried to explain in the patch, user space and kernel do the endian check differently. And, there are about ~300 sites in the kernel with __*ENDIAN checks Sukadev -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
