Hi Vladimir, > The problem I see with bitrev8 is that the byte_rev_table[] can > seemingly be built as a module (the BITREVERSE Kconfig knob is tristate, > and btw your patch doesn't make PACKING select BITREVERSE). But PACKING > is bool. IIRC, I got comments during review that it's not worth making > packing a module, but I may remember wrong. Do you really think it's a problem? I personally would just select BITREVERSE with/without making PACKING tristate. BITREVERSE is already selected by CRC32 which defaults to y, so just adding a select isn't a change in the default. Can't think of a practical point in avoiding linking against 256 bytes here. In any case, it just doesn't look right to have multiple bit-reverse implementations only because of Kconfig relations.
