Re: Byteorder conditional compilation problems

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:43 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Scripting a change from "defined(__XXX_ENDIAN)" to "(__XXX_ENDIAN==__BYTEORDER)"
>> should be easy to script.
>
> How about we just make the rule be that we shouldn't test __xyz_ENDIAN
> at all, and instead always use CONFIG_xyz_ENDIAN, which isn't
> ambiguous. And then have the exporter of the uapi header files just
> sed-script that into __xyz_ENDIAN == __BYTEORDER.

I was going to suggest a checkpatch test, but your suggestion is a
better solution.
Still, we may want the checkpatch test, to make sure no one explicitly does the
moronic byte order check.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/