On 26/09/17 02:33, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:44:02PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> But above cast to be16 also doesn't seem quite C-like in terms >> of what we're actually doing... 3rd option would be my personal >> preference even if it doesn't look C-like, but otoh we also have >> 'call' etc which is neither.
<snip> > In that sense (be16) cast is pretty much self explanatory. > So I'd like to continue bikesheding in hopes to convince you > to accept either 1 or 2 above ;) I agree with Daniel. 3rd option `r1 = be16 r1` is best, as it's an actual ALU operation, not just a cast. And since it looks like we're drifting vaguely near a consensus on that (even if Alexei still isn't convinced ;-) I'll spin v2 patches with that and `r1 = (u32) -r1`, so we have something concrete to argue about... -Ed
