From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guy Harris Subject: Endianness of particular fields? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:13:32 -0800 Message-ID: <83A13AAE-2089-4ED9-97D9-EDEBDD911955@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Sender: radiotap-owner-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: To: radiotap-sUITvd46vNxg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org List-Id: radiotap@radiotap.org http://www.radiotap.org says Important Radiotap Characteristics ... * Data is specified in little endian byte-order, all data fields = including the it_version, it_len and it_present fields in the radiotap = header are to be specified in little endian byte-order. This wiki has = adopted the Linux convention of using __le64, __le32 and __le16 for 64-, = 32- and 16-bit little endian quantities. However, for example http://www.radiotap.org/fields/dB%20TX%20attenuation.html says: Structure u16 rather than __le{anything}. I presume the *intent* is that data in particular fields always be = little-endian. Part of the problem here is that the Linux convention, = used to describe the comment headers specifies endianness rather than = signedness (presumably everything is unsigned), and the convention used = for particular fields specifies signedness rather than endianness = (presumably everything is little-endian). Should the site use the {u,s}{64,32,16,8} convention uniformly, and say = "all multi-byte fields in all the headers and the fields are = little-endian", to make it a little clearer that fields, as well as = headers, are little-endian? (Or, alternatively, say "{u,s}_le_64", = "{u,s}_le_32", etc., or something similar with fewer underscores as = desired?)