On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:12:16AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 23:58 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > Well, we should be byteswapping all of the fields that need to be > > swapped, right? I'm guessing that userspace is expecting the fields > > to be in cpu endian, correct? > > Userspace varies in that. Nobody expects _all_ the fields to be swapped; > the kernel only ever swapped those four. And in fact lsusb from the > stock usbutils expects it to be consistently little-endian. John's > version seems to be hacked to expect just those four fields to be host- > endian, while the rest remains little-endian. > > We have a choice here -- we can preserve the ABI by continuing to be > stupidly inconsistent about endianness, or you can revert my patch and > stock usbutils can be correct.
Let's preserve the ABI, that's the safest thing to do. > > But if you want, I'll gladly revert your patch, as I don't have a ppc > > box to test this out on. > > I'd revert it. Done. thanks, greg k-h - 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/
