From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:15:38 -0700
Subject: single, comprehensive kernel data types document?
In-Reply-To: <16162.1460740039@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1604150801170.6570@localhost.localdomain>
	<20160415122724.GA7389@kroah.com> <20160415155909.GA13082@osadl.at>
	<20160415161832.GA25094@kroah.com>
	<16162.1460740039@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <20160415201538.GA19579@kroah.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 01:07:19PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:18:32 -0700, Greg KH said:
> 
> > Within the kernel, yes, you can use lots of different types for the same
> > "real" variable size, but you shouldn't, just use the well-known and
> > common types "u8" and you will be fine.  Those other ones are there due
> > to code being brought in from all over the place, that's what happens
> > with a codebase of 20 million lines at times :)
> 
> What's the current feeling on using typedefs to get more type safety?

typedefs are evil, never use them.  No non-core-kernel developer should
EVER create a new typedef, except for a function pointer signature.

greg k-h