Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:55:56 +1100 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Linux/IA-64 byte order |
| |
David Mosberger writes: > >>>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:11:55 +1100, Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au> said: > > >> There are often endianness selection bits in the page table > >> entries, add a new flag to mmap, and voila. > > Richard> Ah, now that's an attractive option. > Richard> Linus: would this be acceptable? > Richard> David Mo: is this possible? > > As I said before: the question was regarding _default_ byteorder. > Linus has said that he wants the byteorder to be little-endian and > that is it.
Hold on. We seem to be talking at cross purposes here. What Dave Miller is suggesting is to have LE the default, but allowed specific mmap()ed regions to be accessed with BE. It would appear to me that that wouldn't cause the ugliness that Linus is concerned about. All the x86 compatibility isn't affected. Normal operation wouldn't be affected either. Only applications specifically requiring this would use this facility, and it shouldn't impact the user<->kernel interface either (no mucking with ioctl() data).
That's why I'm asking Linus the question whether or not such a solution (if supported by the hardware) is acceptable.
> It's of no use to press me for architectural information on IA-64. > You'll just have to wait until the architecture is fully disclosed > (or live with what has been disclosed already). Sorry.
OK. Didn't realise that this was something sensitive.
Regards,
Richard....
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |