[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] bswap.h: Rename ldl_p, stl_p, et

From: Michael Tokarev
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] bswap.h: Rename ldl_p, stl_p, etc to ldl_he_p, stl_he_p, etc
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:53:30 +0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0

15.05.2014 22:22, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 11:13 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 2 May 2014 19:48, Richard Henderson <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2014 10:32 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> We have an unfortunate naming clash between the functions
>>>> ldl_p, stl_p, etc defined in bswap.h (which have semantics
>>>> "load/store in host endianness") and the #defines of the same
>>>> name in cpu-all.h (which have the semantics "load/store in
>>>> target endianness").
>>>> Fortunately it turns out that the only users of the bswap.h
>>>> functions are all within bswap.h itself, so we can simply
>>>> rename them to include a _he_ infix for "host endianness".
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>> Frankly I'm surprised that the only users of these functions
>>>> are the ones within bswap.h itself, but it's a lucky escape
>>>> from having to audit an enormous pile of code...
>>>> We had talked about changing the "target-endian" accessors
>>>> to be ldl_te_p &c, but given the uses aren't tangled together
>>>> as I feared they would be, I'm not sure we can justify the
>>>> global function rename.
>>> I'm surprised too, but... good news, I guess.
>>> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
>> Anybody care to suggest a submaintainer tree this should
>> go in via?
> Trivial?  Ha, ha, only serious.

Oh well.

Okay.  I checked every macro in there, and indeed, it does not look
like these macros are used outside of bswap.h itself.  I modified
the macros to expand to syntactically-incorrect code and modified
all usages of those inside bswap.h to make it correct again, just
to verify, and did a rebuild.  Unfortunately I don't have easy
access to non-x86 hardware to try other host byte order, but this
should already be a good test.

So that should be an okay change.

So.. Applying to -trivial, thank you! :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]