On 05/18/2012 02:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > But why do you think it's wrong the way it is? I see the idea of putting > padding in varying places depending on the endianess as a failed experiment > and defining a structure that is always the same as the logical conclusion > from that, even if it's a bit silly to have any padding in it at all. > The *whole point* is to make the structure the same across modes, to make the compat layer's job easier. > Being consistent seems more important here than following the intent > of whoever came up with the concept of the ipc64 data structures > and was consequently ignored by most people after him. So you're saying because some architectures introduced a bug, we should *CONTINUE* to introduce the same bug?? WTF?? > If we really wanted the data structures to be compatible between 32 and > 64 bit mode, we'd have to use __u64 here but that would mean having to > change all bits of user code that already rely on the existing x86 > compatible layout. x86 is doing it right. Some bigendian architectures blindly copied what x86 was doing without thinking. That's a bug on their part, period. -hpa -- 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
