On Friday 11 February 2011 02:37:00 Larry Finger wrote: > On 02/10/2011 06:48 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c b/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c > > index 1eacba4..0494d7b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c > > @@ -216,17 +217,20 @@ static void p54p_check_rx_ring(struct ieee80211_hw *dev, u32 *index, > > rx_buf[i] = NULL; > > - desc->host_addr = 0; > > + desc->host_addr = cpu_to_le32(0); > > How does a BE zero differ from a LE zero? As far as I can know "0" is something like an endian palindrome. Otherwise [non-NULL] we would have fixed this long ago, because then a warning is generated by "sparse": drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c:229:20: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types) drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c:229:20: expected restricted __le32 [usertype] host_addr drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54pci.c:229:20: got int > Using it this way emphasizes that it needs to be translated - > I'm not objecting, just curious. Furthermore the compiler optimizes *constant* cpu_to_le [and vice versa] conversions, so there's no hidden cost from using them. Regards, Chr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
