On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:08:33PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Greg KH wrote: > > Yeah, it's not the cleanest, and yes, it is just shutting the warning > > up, but that's ok in this case. I guess I could look into doing the > > "two different structures" type thing again, if people don't like things > > like this in different places. > > On the other hand, maybe you could just leave it in "hardware byte order".
True. Nothing like changing the byte order of structure fields to really drive the "out-of-tree" driver writers crazy. I like it :) > That's something that sparse really can help with - it should pinpoint > exactly everybody who uses it, and give a reasonable error for them, so > that everybody can agree on the byte-order. Hm, I'll look into doing that after 2.6.10, as it does make more sense in the long run. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
