[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 1/7] byteorder: replace __u16
On 09.10.2024 15:34, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.10.2024 15:20, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 09/10/2024 10:21 am, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> In {big,little}_endian.h the changes are entirely mechanical, except for >>> dealing with casting away of const from pointers-to-const on lines >>> touched anyway. >>> >>> In swab.h the casting of constants is done away with as well - I simply >>> don't see what the respective comment is concerned about in our >>> environment (sizeof(int) >= 4, sizeof(long) >= {4,8} depending on >>> architecture, sizeof(long long) >= 8). The comment is certainly relevant >>> in more general cases. Excess parentheses are dropped as well, >>> ___swab16()'s local variable is renamed, and __arch__swab16()'s is >>> dropped as being redundant with ___swab16()'s. >>> >>> With that no uses of the type remain, so it moves to linux-compat.h. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> I'm unconvinced of the need of the separate ___constant_swab16(). I'm >>> also unconvinced of the need for said constants (that even had casts on >>> them). >> >> There is a still-good series deleting the whole of byteorder/ and >> replacing it with a few-hundred line single header. >> >> It is the second thing stalled on a governance change (prohibited >> reasons to object to a change) which clearly no-one gives a damn about >> fixing. In fact double spite because it denied a good engineer his >> first changes in Xen. >> >> >> I don't particularly feel like trying to polish byteorder. I'm inclined >> to rebase+repost Lin's patches, at which point the majority of this >> series simply disappears. > > I wouldn't mind you doing so, as long as that other series then progresses. > What I don't want to get into is the other series being stuck rendering this > one stuck, too. Then it would imo be better to take this one first, rebase > the other on top, and work towards it becoming unstuck (whatever that takes; > I have no recollection of what the issue was back at the time, all I recall > is that, yes, there was such work at some point). Just to have a clear picture: Was your reply an objection, with you indeed meaning me to hold back this tidying work? If so, can you please indicate when, at least roughly, you mean to re-post what you think wants re-posting? If not, can you please indicate so, for me to commit stuff that's otherwise ready to go in (and which that other work should be easy to re-base over)? Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |