xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] Move from __uint*_t types to uint*_t and likewise for __

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Move from __uint*_t types to uint*_t and likewise for __int*_t
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:46:39 +1100
Cc: Felix Janda <felix.janda@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160113074859.GB21939@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <cover.1452627740.git.felix.janda@xxxxxxxxx> <20160112195935.GB568@nyan> <20160112212405.GL10456@dastard> <20160113074859.GB21939@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:48:59PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 08:24:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I can't apply this straight off. Most of the libxfs code that is
> > changed is shared with the kernel code, and so the definitions of
> > the variables need to be the same as the kernel code. There are
> > reasons for the kernel code using __[u]int*_t type variants (e.g.  I
> > think the endian conversion static checker requires the __ variants
> > for host order variables), and so before making sweeping changes
> > like this we need to ensure that we can make the equivalent changes
> > to the kernel code as well...
> 
> There is no functional requirement for these types.  I'm not sure if
> they are an IRIXism, or something that was added during the early
> Linux port, but they certainly aren't nessecary.
> 
> I'd love to kill them in favour or either the kernel __u/s types or the
> C99 types which are like the urrent ones just without the __ prefix.
> 
> Maybe we should get an agreement which ones we want and ask Felix for
> a patch to the kernel tree?

Either way is fine by me, but it's not a small patch - there's ~600
variables declared in fs/xfs with the __[u]int*_t types.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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