Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: add typedefs chapter

[Marcel Siegert <mws@linuxtv.org>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 May 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 11:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>The problem with uint32_t is that it's ugly, it used to be unportable, and 
>>>you can't use it in header files _anyway_.
>>
>>Unportable? It's at least as portable as u32 is, surely? We probably
>>wouldn't have used <stdint.h> in the kernel anyway -- we define them
>>ourselves. 
> 
> 
> When the u<n> things were done, uint<n>_t wasn't at all common. 
> 
> 
>>The header files are completely irrelevant too -- we're talking about
>>'u32' not '__u32'.
> 
> 
> That's not irrelevant. Usually you want to have stuff in header files that 
> you use in source code. You want the two to visually look similar. It's a 
> hell of a lot less confusing to use "u32" (in source) and "__u32" (in the 
> header file), than it is to mix "uint32_t" (in source) and some random 
> other thing (in header file).

isn't it possible to mix up u32 and some random other thing?
> 
>>The important thing is your belief that it's ugly, which is what was
>>documented.
> 
> 
> And that wasn't what I objected to. 
> 
> What I objected to was that other part, which said that "uint32_t" was 
> somehow more standard.
> 
> IN THE KERNEL IT IS _LESS_ STANDARD.
> 
> And outside the kernel, that documentation is not exactly relevant.

nack. something is a standard or something is not. black or white. grey isn't there.
of course, you are free to create your own kernel standard or whatever.
what about __uint32_t? *scnr*

marcel


> 		Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/