On Thu, Jul 18, 2024, at 10:33, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:48:42AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 10:34 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 08:19:51AM GMT, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> > > +
>> > > +union __u128_halves {
>> > > + u128 full;
>> > > + struct {
>> > > + u64 low, high;
>> >
>> > Should we consider big endian too?
>>
>> Should we care about big endian? We don't deal with big endian
>> anywhere in our kernel right now.
>
> There's one or two places I think that we do actually have some
> conditional stuff for BE. The Zbb string routines I believe is one such
> place, and maybe there are one or two others. In general I'm not of the
> opinion that it is worth adding complexity for BE until there's
> linux-capable hardware that supports it (so not QEMU or people's toy
> implementations), unless it's something that userspace is able to see.
I don't think you want to go there at all: maintaining an
extra user space ABI (or two if you add 32-bit BE as well)
has a huge long-term cost, and there is pretty much zero
benefit for a BE ABI these days.
Adding it to arm64 turned out to be a mistake. We did have
a handful of users in the first year, and it technically
still works, but I don't think there are any users left
after they managed to fix their nonportable legacy
userspace from that was ported from big-endian mips or
powerpc.
Arnd
