From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 04:57:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121221045731.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201211141218.02105.arnd@arndb.de>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:18:01PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The other types that are used as 64 bit on x32 are ino_t, nlink_t,
> size_t, ssize_t, ptrdiff_t, and off_t.
*Kernel-side* we should not give a damn about the userland nlink_t, period.
Making it architecture-dependent had been a bad mistake that essentially
made nlink_t useless for the kernel. That mistake had been fixed; please,
do not bring it back. If some userland structure needs to include a field
encoding nlink_t values, please use an explicitly-sized type when refering
to it kernel-side.
The same should've been true for mode_t, but for historical reasons we
are using umode_t for just about everything and IMO we should kill the
last references to mode_t anywhere kernel-side (again, explicitly-sized
types for userland st_mode and friends on the last few architectures
still refering to mode_t there) and just rename umode_t to mode_t; I'm
sick and tired of playing whack-a-mole with code using (arch-dependent)
mode_t for kernel data. And no, it's not always harmless - we had rather
ugly bugs based on that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-21 4:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-14 12:18 new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-14 12:48 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-11-14 16:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-11-14 16:26 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-11-15 9:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-15 9:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-15 13:59 ` H.J. Lu
2012-11-15 14:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-11-15 14:42 ` H.J. Lu
2012-11-15 15:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-12-21 4:57 ` Al Viro [this message]
2012-12-21 5:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-12-21 5:02 ` Al Viro
2012-12-21 5:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-12-21 5:19 ` Al Viro
2012-12-21 5:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121221045731.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).