Re: Header files and the kernel ABI

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Brad Hards wrote:
> 
> I like it (having just argued for it), except for the __s* and __u*.
> The ABI definitions aren't for kernel programmers. They are for 
> userspace programmers. So we should use standard types,
> even if they are a bit ugly (and uint16_t isn't really much uglier
> than __u16, and at least it doesn't carry connotations of
> something that is meant to be internal, which is what the standard
> double-underscore convention means). 
> 

Not quite -- it means they are implementation-specific (in this case, 
Linux-specific.)  The Linux __s* and __u* predates <stdint.h>; I 
certainly would like to migrate to <stdint.h> but I don't see it as a 
very high priority.

	-hpa