From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:09:01 +0000
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, UV: integer wrap bug in uv_hub_ipi_value()
Message-Id: <50ABB92D.5090401@zytor.com>
List-Id: <kernel-janitors.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20121117151611.GB16900@elgon.mountain> <20121120004834.GE5060@sgi.com> <20121120042855.GE6186@mwanda> <20121120111055.64845785@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121120162706.GB11150@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121120162706.GB11150@sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org

On 11/20/2012 08:27 AM, Russ Anderson wrote:
>
> I very much agree.  I prefer u32, u64 (etc) because they are
> unambiguous.  It removes all doubt as to the actual meaning.
>
> Conversly, the fact that "long" has different meanings makes
> it at best problematic.  Was the code written assuming "long"
> was 32 or 64 bits?  Having data types that can have different
> sizes is just asking for trouble.
>

In the Linux kernel context, "long" effectively means the native size 
(size_t/intptr_t/ptrdiff_t).

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.