[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 08/12] xfs: Remove the macro XFS_BUF_SET_PTR

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] xfs: Remove the macro XFS_BUF_SET_PTR
From: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:58:42 -0500
Cc: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20110725162513.GA2434@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20110722003226.21069.58401.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110722003333.21069.32295.sendpatchset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1311363510.2771.103.camel@doink> <20110724113543.GB26332@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1311609456.2914.24.camel@doink> <20110725162513.GA2434@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: <aelder@xxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 12:25 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:57:36AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > Btw, nice follow-on cleanups would be to kill off the xfs_caddr_t and
> > > __psint_t/__psunsigned_t types entirely.
> > 
> > Yes.  What do you suggest to use for a pointer-sized
> > type?  Just cast to (long) and rely on the usual arithmetic
> > conversions to do the right thing?
> The correct C99 type is (u)intptr_t.  In the kernel we only have
> uintptr_t, with ACPI defining a local version of intptr_t.  I'd suggest
> trying to stick to uintptr_t if we can, and if we really need a signed
> version add intptr_t to the common headers - it can unconditionally be
> typedef to long in Linux anyway.

I *knew* there was a standard type but I couldn't
remember what it was called.  I even scanned through
my C spec but gave up looking pretty quickly.  I
think I had "size" somehow stuck in my mind and that
didn't help.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>