On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 14:56, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Danny Cox wrote:
> > > I don't think that's valid. And at least gcc 3.2 doesn't complain..
> > Yes, but 2.96 does. I'd think that several folks use 2.96, since
> > that's the standard gcc from RH 7.2.
> Gcc '2.96' is a development snapshot. Even if redhat ships it it's by
> now ways official.
Okay, one more try, and I'll admit defeat, and shut up:
"Official" or not, many folks who use XFS will compile it with gcc
2.96, because that's the version they get by default. They must make
the changes if they wish to acutally *use* XFS. Even given that it's a
simple change, I doubt that a non-C-programmer can do it.
> > > In this case not, as the kmem_zone_t is an object opaque to it's user.
> > > Compare it to kmem_cache_t in þhe core Linux code.
> > Okay, point taken. Nevertheless, the types between the .c and .h files
> > should be consistent, whatever is chosen, no?
> No. Using structs in headers and typedefs in the actual source is very
> common, because you can use pointers to struct without needing the actual
Yes, it's common. Yes, it's acceptable C. But it forces some people
to make changes to their XFS tree that will continue to haunt them until
they upgrade to a new compiler, and others to completly abandon XFS
because it won't compile for them.
You seem to be pushing a legalistic stance: "This is the proper way to
do it, so we're not going to change.", while I'm pushing for a relativly
small code change that will allow more people to use XFS, and thereby
gain a wider exposure/acceptance.
kernel, n.: A part of an operating system that preserves the
medieval traditions of sorcery and black art.