LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Nick Kossifidis <mick@ics.forth.gr>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 14:04:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190513120435.GB22993@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+YT52wGuARxe9RqUsMYGNZTwaBowWWUUawyqTBq4G1NDg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:50:19PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > We did have some bugs in the past (~1-2 y/ago) but AFAIK they are all
> > fixed now. These days I build most of my kernels with a bi-endian 64-bit
> > toolchain, and switching endian without running `make clean` also works.
> 
> For the record, yes, it turn out to be a problem in our code (a latent
> bug). We actually used host (x86) gcc to build as-if ppc code that can
> run on the host, so it defined neither LE no BE macros. It just
> happened to work in the past :)

So Nick was right and these checks actually are useful..

  reply	other threads:[~2019-05-13 12:04 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
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 [this message]
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=20190513120435.GB22993@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mick@ics.forth.gr \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --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).