From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:57:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121221045731.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201211141218.02105.arnd@arndb.de>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:18:01PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The other types that are used as 64 bit on x32 are ino_t, nlink_t,
> size_t, ssize_t, ptrdiff_t, and off_t.
*Kernel-side* we should not give a damn about the userland nlink_t, period.
Making it architecture-dependent had been a bad mistake that essentially
made nlink_t useless for the kernel. That mistake had been fixed; please,
do not bring it back. If some userland structure needs to include a field
encoding nlink_t values, please use an explicitly-sized type when refering
to it kernel-side.
The same should've been true for mode_t, but for historical reasons we
are using umode_t for just about everything and IMO we should kill the
last references to mode_t anywhere kernel-side (again, explicitly-sized
types for userland st_mode and friends on the last few architectures
still refering to mode_t there) and just rename umode_t to mode_t; I'm
sick and tired of playing whack-a-mole with code using (arch-dependent)
mode_t for kernel data. And no, it's not always harmless - we had rather
ugly bugs based on that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-21 4:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-14 12:18 new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-14 12:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-11-14 16:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-11-15 9:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-15 13:59 ` H.J. Lu
2012-11-15 14:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-15 14:42 ` H.J. Lu
2012-11-15 15:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-12-21 4:57 ` Al Viro [this message]
2012-12-21 5:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-12-21 5:02 ` Al Viro
2012-12-21 5:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-12-21 5:19 ` Al Viro
2012-12-21 5:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121221045731.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.