From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:58:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:58:21 -0400 Received: from ns.caldera.de ([212.34.180.1]:42399 "EHLO ns.caldera.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:58:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:57:34 +0200 Message-Id: <200108160257.f7G2vYA18080@ns.caldera.de> From: Christoph Hellwig To: kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: daddr_t is inconsistent and barely used X-Newsgroups: caldera.lists.linux.kernel In-Reply-To: <9980.997929632@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.2 (i686)) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <9980.997929632@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> you wrote: > daddr_t is barely used in the kernel. 2.4.8. > > The use of daddr_t in freevxfs may give different in core and disk > layouts on different machines. Is that intended?. No, it may not. Please double check. > Do we still need daddr_t? I think so, in fact we really should use daddr_t for all incore disk addessing. > This question was raised when I saw patches for ia64 that replaced u32 > with unsigned long because ia64 needs 64 bit. Shouldn't we be using a > consistent type that holds kernel addresses as numbers? off_t and > loff_t are not suitable. caddr_t is close but uses char *, sometimes > you want just a number. What about defining kaddr_t? vaddr_t? That's consintant to virt_to_phys, virt_to_bus, etc.. and what SVR5 uses. Christoph -- Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX.