On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 11:32:59AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > Yeah! That was my first thought, but because this was reported > > by LKP (which I respect more than other code analyzers) as a > > potential issue, I was on the 50-50. > > A potential issue on outdated hardware (or better: non-existing versions > of outdated harware) which has not showed up since the git era is not > really a for-current bugfix in my book. That being said, it does not > harm in for-current. Honestly, I'm not entirely happy with this patch. It seems to add unnecessary churn without addressing an actual need. Since we're operating in the same endianness domain, I don't think there is requirement for an endianness conversion here. On one hand, I want to give credit to Atharva for his effort; on the other hand, I think the real solution would be to just remove the comments altogether. I'm going to hold off for now and wait for additional feedback. If no further comments come in, I'll likely drop this patch. Andi
