From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Use __kernel_long_t in struct timex Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:50:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4FB580A3.5010909@kernel.org> References: <1337292816-10839-1-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <1337292816-10839-2-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <4FB57EB2.4050208@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FB57EB2.4050208@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "H.J. Lu" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 05/17/2012 03:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > That being said, this is a lot like the __u* and __s* types which we use > instead of for similar reasons. I don't know if > __ulong/__slong or __uword/__sword would be better here? > Anyway - Linus, if you have a specific preference let me know and can fix up these patches as well as the existing users in the kernel. -hpa From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:38148 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030523Ab2EQWu0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2012 18:50:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4FB580A3.5010909@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:50:11 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Use __kernel_long_t in struct timex References: <1337292816-10839-1-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <1337292816-10839-2-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <4FB57EB2.4050208@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB57EB2.4050208@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "H.J. Lu" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de Message-ID: <20120517225011.f8Z2ROi7C5RrlaU30wI4ldxkwPGY1iuAavwA6oZaZHo@z> On 05/17/2012 03:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > That being said, this is a lot like the __u* and __s* types which we use > instead of for similar reasons. I don't know if > __ulong/__slong or __uword/__sword would be better here? > Anyway - Linus, if you have a specific preference let me know and can fix up these patches as well as the existing users in the kernel. -hpa