Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted text
> 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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html