Re: [PATCH 1/7] byteorder: replace __u16

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

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