On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 19:28 +0000, Anatol Belski wrote:
> Hi,
Hello.
> On Sun, 2019-10-20 at 12:02 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > There's an argument inconsistency between these 4 functions
> > in include/linux/byteorder/generic.h
> >
> > It'd be more a consistent API with one form and not two.
> >
> > static inline void le32_to_cpu_array(u32 *buf, unsigned int words)
> > {
> > while (words--) {
> > __le32_to_cpus(buf);
> > buf++;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > static inline void cpu_to_le32_array(u32 *buf, unsigned int words)
> > {
> > while (words--) {
> > __cpu_to_le32s(buf);
> > buf++;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > vs
> >
> > static inline void cpu_to_be32_array(__be32 *dst, const u32 *src,
> > size_t len)
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > dst[i] = cpu_to_be32(src[i]);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void be32_to_cpu_array(u32 *dst, const __be32 *src,
> > size_t len)
> > {
> > int i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > dst[i] = be32_to_cpu(src[i]);
> > }
> >
> >
>
> size_t is the right choice for this, as it'll generate more correct
> binary depending on 32/64 bit. I've sent a patch in
> 'include/linux/byteorder/generic.h: fix signed/unsigned warnings'
> before, but only touched the place where i've seen warnings. My very
> bet is, that changing between size_t/unsigned, while it would be
> consistent, wouldn't change the functionality. It'd probably make sense
> to extend the aforementioned patch to move unsigned -> size_t.
True, but my point was the le versions have 2 arguments and
convert the buf input, and the be versions have 3 arguments
and convert src to dst.
cheers, Joe
