Messages in this thread | | | From | Oliver Neukum <> | Subject | Re: drivers/block/ub.c | Date | Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:24:18 +0200 |
| |
Am Sonntag, 27. Juni 2004 16:08 schrieb Andries Brouwer: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:04:36AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > >> Yes, we have macros. Using those macros would not at all be an improvement here. > > > > > > > > How do you arrive at that unusual conclusion? > > > > > > The above writes clearly and simply what one wants. > > > I expect that you propose writing > > > > > > *((u32 *)(cmd->cdb + 2)) = cpu_to_be32(block); > > > > > > or some similar unspeakable ugliness. > > > If you had something else in mind, please reveal what. > > > > That "ugliness" has the unspeakable advantage of producing sane code > > on big endian architectures. > > I am not so sure. It tells the compiler to do a 4-byte access > on an address that possibly is not 4-byte aligned.
We also have the unaligned family of macro. Probably the cleanest solution would be a union to do away with the ugly casts that would be needed.
Regards Oliver - 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/
| |