Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] byteorder: eliminate pointer bytorder api | From | Harvey Harrison <> | Date | Tue, 27 May 2008 15:40:16 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2008-05-26 at 14:17 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Wednesday 2008-05-21 00:30, Harvey Harrison wrote: > >On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 15:19 -0700, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> > >> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:15:25 -0700 > >> > >> > Obviously I missed that part, my apologies. Would it be acceptable if, > >> > taking the possibly arch-specific parts, moved the [endian]_to_cpup > >> > name over to get_[endian] > >> > >> Why are we fiddling with interface names that have been fine for about > >> 10 years? > > I suggest some comments be added to the cpu_to_*p() to specify their > reason for being there (namely, speedups on some CPUs)
Agreed.
> > >Saw a lot of (or similar in a private helper): > > > >*(__be32 *)ptr = cpu_to_be32(val); > > > >So I came up with > > > >void put_be32(val, ptr); > > I think it would be better to follow the common notation of the target > being on the left side (like most intel asm commands and things like > C's memcpy, etc)
I based this on the existing put_unaligned_be32 to have the same arg order.
Cheers,
Harvey
| |