From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [patch 5/7] make netfilter use strict integer types Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:02:22 -0800 Message-ID: <49A5EA1E.5@zytor.com> References: <20090225235138.062045835@arndb.de> <20090225235515.682333715@arndb.de> <49A5DECD.7090809@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:34429 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752964AbZBZBJd (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:09:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: arnd@arndb.de, Sam Ravnborg , Kyle McMartin , Ingo Molnar , Jaswinder Singh Rajput , mingo@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2009-02-26 01:14, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> [...] >>> IMHO, __uXX should be replaced by uintX_t, but a move this great I >>> will leave to future generations because there is just too much >>> persisting opinions wrt. such proposal. As such I'd like to join >>> and persist on my position and that uintX that we have should be kept. >> We *CAN'T* replace __uXX with uintX_t. Period, full stop, end of story. > > Would the mindful master please elaborate why this is so, if it is > indeed not a personal decision. POSIX has strict rules as to what symbols you are allowed to present into the user-visible namespace. This means you can't use these types for any header that may be indirectly included. Since we can't use them in general, it's silly to use them for a minority of headers, which would then have different exposure rules than people otherwise can expect. -hpa