On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:34 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 21:15 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Harvey Harrison wrote: > Sounds still a bit strange to me... > > As `get' and `put' have connotations of reference counts, what about > `load' and `store', e.g. `load_le32()' and `store_be16()'? > Well, load is covered by le16_to_cpup and friends. I could live with store_le16 though. I had originally added get_le16, put_le16 to match up with the get_unaligned_le16, put_unaligned_le16 functions. Maybe these would have been better as load_unaligned_* store_unaligned_* and during this change we could fix the argument order to be (ptr, val) allowing a gradual changeover without a flag day. Andrew? What do you think of load/store? Harvey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
