On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:51:53PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted text
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>>
>>> If it is going to be unconditionally offered, we could get rid of
>>> __BYTEORDER_HAS_U64__ as a next step.  Unless there is something I've
>>> missed.
>>
>> Why do we need the byteorder headers in userspace at all?
>>
>
> Because Linux-specific software has depended on them for over 15 years  
> (they are a much better API than anything POSIX provides.)  We can't  
> just yank them, and so it's better if they actually work.
> 
> Yes, you can argue it should be glibc's job to provide them, but well,  
> why duplicate work when we already have a nicely working set.

The worst thing is how many CONFIG_'s they currently leak to userspace.

And e.g. the versions in the x86 header are therefore not the fastest 
ones (unless the userspace software #define's CONFIG_X86_BSWAP)...

quoted text
> 	-hpa

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/