Re: [PATCH] [RFC] #define __BYTE_ORDER

[David Daney]

On 03/24/2010 11:37 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 19:21, Andrew Morton<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:10:55 +0100
> > Joakim Tjernlund<Joakim.Tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >
> > > Linux does not define __BYTE_ORDER in its endian header files
> > > which makes some header files bend backwards to get at the
> > > current endian. Lets #define __BYTE_ORDER in big_endian.h/litte_endian.h
> > > to make it easier for header files that are used in user space too.
> >
> > I don't get it.  Why not nuke __BYTE_ORDER altogether and do `#ifdef
> > __LITTLE_ENDIAN' and `#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN' everywhere?
>
> Because in userspace the convention is that
>    1. _both_ __LITTLE_ENDIAN and __BIG_ENDIAN are defined,
>    2. you have to test for e.g. __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN.

I have stumbled on this issue as well.

However, consider this:

If you make such a change, then you will start to see:

#if __BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN

appearing in kernel source code.  Do we want two different endian 
checking idioms in the kernel?  Or would it be just a single idiom, but 
one that is different than the status quo?

The only time I can see that it makes a difference is if you want to 
share things like driver source code files between in-kernel drivers and 
userspace.  A discussion of which, would probably provoke much discussion.

David Daney


--
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/