xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] types.h: implement intptr_t and uintptr_t

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] types.h: implement intptr_t and uintptr_t
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:13:19 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, joe@xxxxxxxxxxx, bpm@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120620230232.GN30705@dastard>
References: <1338487534-14575-1-git-send-email-jengelh@xxxxxxx> <20120620075216.GA24798@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120620230232.GN30705@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:02:32AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:52:16AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I'd really like to get Jans type cleanups in XFS in for the next
> > merge window.  Given the lack of feedback on lkml in favor or
> > against (u)intptr_t I'm tempted to add them to xfs_linux.h for now,
> > and then do another push to propagate them to kernel-wide types later.
> > 
> > Is that fine with everybody?
> 
> I'd just push it into the XFS tree and into linux-next. It's a
> relatively harmless set of changes, and if nobody cares enough about
> it except us, just push it and see what happens when people start
> noticing the conflicts it might cause....

Given that's it's been out on lkml for a while that sounds at least
okay-ish.  I just fear we might get dragged into a long discussion when
then pull request is sent.  Just adding the types locally and moving
them to types.h in a single patch avoids that.

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