"Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes:
> OGAWA Hirofumi writes:
> > "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes:
> >> OGAWA Hirofumi writes:
> >>> "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> writes:
>
> >>>> - * Conversion from and to little-endian byte order. (no-op on i386/i486)
> >>>> - *
> >>>> - * Naming: Ca_b_c, where a: F = from, T = to, b: LE = little-endian,
> >>>> - * BE = big-endian, c: W = word (16 bits), L = longword (32 bits)
> >>>> - */
> >>>> -
> >>>> -#define CF_LE_W(v) le16_to_cpu(v)
> >>>> -#define CF_LE_L(v) le32_to_cpu(v)
> >>>> -#define CT_LE_W(v) cpu_to_le16(v)
> >>>> -#define CT_LE_L(v) cpu_to_le32(v)
> >>>
> >>> Personally I think this patch makes code readable. But please don't
> >>> remove Cx_LE_x macros. Cx_LE_x is used from dosfsck.
> >>
> >> Then the macros should be put in dosfsck, which is not
> >> part of the kernel.
> >
> > Why do we throw away backward compatible?
>
> 1. app source code isn't supposed to use raw kernel headers
> 2. existing executables are not affected
> 3. the 2.5.xx series has already broken much more
> 4. it's crud for the kernel; it's crud for user code
> 5. the kernel shouldn't contain misc. user app code
Why is there __KERNEL__ macro?
> Use the packed attribute on the struct, along with
> the right types. I don't think you need get_unaligned
> with a packed struct, because gcc will know that it
> needs to emit code for unaligned data.
OK. Please send patch.
-- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:13 EST