Re: [PATCH 2/2] byteorder: eliminate pointer bytorder api

[Jan Engelhardt]

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@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 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)

>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)

	void put_be32(ptr, val);

--
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/