Jon Maloy, el 20 de octubre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
quoted text
> <...>
> > > 
> > > Remember, permitting both is a superset of the current one 
> > (NBO only) 
> > > so it is fully backwards compatible. We break absolutly nothing by 
> > > permitting this.
> > > 
> > Thats effectively reverting both our patches though, isn't it 
> > (not that I'm disagreeing with it, just looking for 
> > clarification).  If we revert my patch and reintroduce the 
> > htohl mechanism which tracks endianess, we might as well 
> > revert the TIPC_SUB_SERVICE flag as well, yeah?
> 
> Absolutely. I think it was a mistake to change that value.
> But I don't think we need to reintroduce the htohl(). That
> was just one way of doing it. If I understood your suggestion
> from yesterday correctly you converted the whole message within
> one if()clause, without any htohl(). I have have no problem with 
> that approach.

There is a difference between both solutions, the htohl() version
tracked the need for swap as a struct subscription member (which was
used when sending back events). Neils patch doesn't do that tracking.
I don't really know the implications of this, but maybe it would be
a wise idea to stay in the safe side and revert both patches for now.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not a lie, if you believe it.
	-- George Constanza
--
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/