Re: [PATCH] Split big and little endian BeFS and AtheFS

[Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko]

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Robert Millan<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 06:16:24PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>> I don't think we should rename "byte_order" to "unused".  Just because
>> we doesn't use it now to determine the endianess,
>
> Shouldn't we be checking for it?  (and error out if mismatch).
This field is unstraightforward to use. We already have the same
information from the magic (which is stored in native-endian). I feel
like checking additional field will just lead to rejected FS
especially if I don't get this field right. In other words I prefer to
keep complexity to minimum especially in parts of code not used
extensively.
>
> --
> Robert Millan
>
>  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
>  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
>  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>



-- 
Regards
Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko

Personal git repository: http://repo.or.cz/w/grub2/phcoder.git