LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	mick@ics.forth.gr,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 16:55:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190412145538.GA24473@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2bg9YkbNpAb9uZkXLFZ3juCmmbF7cRw+Dm9ZiLFno2OQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:53:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:36 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> >
> > When removing some dead big endian checks in the RISC-V code Nick
> > suggested that we should have some generic sanity checks.  I don't think
> > we should have thos inside the RISC-V code, but maybe it might make
> > sense to have these in the generic byteorder headers.  Note that these
> > are UAPI headers and some compilers might not actually define
> > __BYTE_ORDER__, so we first check that it actually exists.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr>
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> Extra checking like this is good in general, but I'm not sure I see
> exactly what kind of issue one might expect to prevent with this:

I'm personally not worried at all. Just trying to respond to Nicks
review comment and make it reasonable generic if we have to have these
checks at all.  I personally would be ok without them, I just don't
want them hidden somewhere in the RISC-V code (RISC-V is always little
endian at least right now).

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-12 14:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-12 14:35 Christoph Hellwig
2019-04-12 14:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-04-12 14:55   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-04-12 15:22     ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-04-12 16:05   ` Nick Kossifidis
2019-05-10 10:53     ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-05-11  0:51       ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-05-13  7:39         ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-05-13 11:33           ` Michael Ellerman
2019-05-13 11:50             ` Dmitry Vyukov
2019-05-13 12:04               ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-05-15  6:53                 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-05-30  1:46 ` Maciej Rozycki
2019-05-30  6:41   ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190412145538.GA24473@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mick@ics.forth.gr \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).