Re: [PATCH, RFC] byteorder: sanity check toolchain vs kernel endianess

[Maciej Rozycki <macro@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h
> index 2199adc6a6c2..34a5864526d2 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/big_endian.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
>  #ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_BIG_ENDIAN_H
>  #define _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_BIG_ENDIAN_H
>  
> +#if defined(__BYTE_ORDER__) && __BYTE_ORDER__ != __ORDER_BIG_ENDIAN__
> +#error "Unsupported endianess, check your toolchain"

 Typo here: s/endianess/endianness/.

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h
> index 601c904fd5cd..0cdf3583e19f 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
>  #ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN_H
>  #define _UAPI_LINUX_BYTEORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN_H
>  
> +#if defined(__BYTE_ORDER__) && __BYTE_ORDER__ !=  __ORDER_LITTLE_ENDIAN__
> +#error "Unsupported endianess, check your toolchain"

 Likewise.

  Maciej