Re: cramfs in big endian

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 05:03:01PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Endian-independent code is slower than wrong-endian code, because of the necessary conditionals. Thus, you DO NOT WANT this(*).

I'd prefer not to have it either.  But a someone (pinhead) was smart
enough not to define an endianess for cramfs from the beginning we're
stuck with it.


I thought cramfs was "always" defined as littleendian?

Either way... I thought the primary discussion was about squashfs.

	-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux