lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [EXT] Re: [net-next, 1/2] enetc: Configure the Time-Aware Scheduler via tc-taprio offload
    On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:54:29AM +0000, Claudiu Manoil wrote:
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: Po Liu <po.liu@nxp.com>
    > [...]
    > >> -----Original Message-----
    > >> From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
    > [...]
    > >> > +/* class 5, command 0 */
    > >> > +struct tgs_gcl_conf {
    > >> > + u8 atc; /* init gate value */
    > >> > + u8 res[7];
    > >> > + union {
    > >> > + struct {
    > >> > + u8 res1[4];
    > >> > + __le16 acl_len;
    > >>
    > >> Given that u* types are used in this structure I think le16 would be more
    > >> appropriate than __le16.
    > >
    > >Here keep the same code style of this .h file. I think it is better to have
    > >another patch to fix them all. Do you agree?
    > >
    >
    > I don't see why "le16" would be more appropriate than "__le16" in this context.
    > The "__leXX" types are widely used in kernel drivers and not only, to annotate the
    > endianess of the hardware. These are generic types defined din "include/uapi/linux/types.h".
    > Whereas "leXX" are defined in "fs/ntfs/types.h", and there's no usage of these types
    > in other h/w device drivers (I didn't find any). Am I missing anything?

    My point is a cosmetic one:
    I think that __u8 goes with __le16, while u8 goes with le16.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-11-12 14:47    [W:4.072 / U:0.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site