From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:59:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from p508B762C.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.118.44]:55420 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 01:59:46 +0100 Received: from fluff.linux-mips.net (fluff.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linux-mips.net (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i680xjaR017340; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 02:59:45 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by fluff.linux-mips.net (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i680xjaF017339; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 02:59:45 +0200 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 02:59:45 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Mika Kukkonen Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: MIPS defines __kernel_uid_t as int? Message-ID: <20040708005945.GA17133@linux-mips.org> References: <1089223996.20452.31.camel@miku.mobile.lnx.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1089223996.20452.31.camel@miku.mobile.lnx.nokia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 5420 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:13:16AM -0700, Mika Kukkonen wrote: > I was doing > $ grep __kernel_uid_t include/*/posix_types.h > > and noticed that MIPS is the only architecture that > defines that to be signed (int) and not unsigned? > > Same with __kernel_uid32_t. Is this intentional > deviation or just an oversight? Intentional but with a really weak reason. Linux/MIPS uses the same type definitions as SysV rsp. the MIPS ABI in it's EFT (Extended Fundamental Types). Not a great idea in retroperspective but that's a choice made 10 years ago. I don't think we'd break anything by changing this. Objections to changing it? Ralf