On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 04:53:28PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:36 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > When removing some dead big endian checks in the RISC-V code Nick > > suggested that we should have some generic sanity checks. I don't think > > we should have thos inside the RISC-V code, but maybe it might make > > sense to have these in the generic byteorder headers. Note that these > > are UAPI headers and some compilers might not actually define > > __BYTE_ORDER__, so we first check that it actually exists. > > > > Suggested-by: Nick Kossifidis <mick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > Extra checking like this is good in general, but I'm not sure I see > exactly what kind of issue one might expect to prevent with this: I'm personally not worried at all. Just trying to respond to Nicks review comment and make it reasonable generic if we have to have these checks at all. I personally would be ok without them, I just don't want them hidden somewhere in the RISC-V code (RISC-V is always little endian at least right now).
