Hi Bjørn,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c
> > index 55cceee..05b78c7 100644
> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c
> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c
> > @@ -461,19 +461,18 @@ static const struct file_operations blacklist_fops = {
> >
> > static void print_bt_uuid(struct seq_file *f, u8 *uuid)
> > {
> > - __be32 data0, data4;
> > - __be16 data1, data2, data3, data5;
> > -
> > - memcpy(&data0, &uuid[0], 4);
> > - memcpy(&data1, &uuid[4], 2);
> > - memcpy(&data2, &uuid[6], 2);
> > - memcpy(&data3, &uuid[8], 2);
> > - memcpy(&data4, &uuid[10], 4);
> > - memcpy(&data5, &uuid[14], 2);
> > -
> > - seq_printf(f, "%.8x-%.4x-%.4x-%.4x-%.8x%.4x\n",
> > - ntohl(data0), ntohs(data1), ntohs(data2), ntohs(data3),
> > - ntohl(data4), ntohs(data5));
> > + u32 data0, data5;
> > + u16 data1, data2, data3, data4;
> > +
> > + data5 = le32_to_cpu(*(__le32 *)uuid);
> > + data4 = le16_to_cpu(*(__le16 *)(uuid + 4));
> > + data3 = le16_to_cpu(*(__le16 *)(uuid + 6));
> > + data2 = le16_to_cpu(*(__le16 *)(uuid + 8));
> > + data1 = le16_to_cpu(*(__le16 *)(uuid + 10));
> > + data0 = le32_to_cpu(*(__le32 *)(uuid + 12));
> > +
> > + seq_printf(f, "%.8x-%.4x-%.4x-%.4x-%.4x%.8x\n",
> > + data0, data1, data2, data3, data4, data5);
> > }
> >
> > static int uuids_show(struct seq_file *f, void *p)
>
>
> Why can't all this be replaced with
>
> static void print_bt_uuid(struct seq_file *f, u8 *uuid)
> {
> seq_printf(f, "%pUl\n", uuid);
> }
>
> ?
I don't think there's any reason assuming that there are no unaligned
access considerations (which I pointed out in my other reply). I wasn't
aware of printk having such a nice extension to the usual format
specifiers (and neither was Gustavo as it seems). Thanks for making us
aware of it!
Johan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
