From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FDF7F37 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:47:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E34B304059 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id xQCW9ooHn6ZBW51P for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:47:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:46:39 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Move from __uint*_t types to uint*_t and likewise for __int*_t Message-ID: <20160120004639.GT6033@dastard> References: <20160112195935.GB568@nyan> <20160112212405.GL10456@dastard> <20160113074859.GB21939@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160113074859.GB21939@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Felix Janda , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:48:59PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 08:24:06AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I can't apply this straight off. Most of the libxfs code that is > > changed is shared with the kernel code, and so the definitions of > > the variables need to be the same as the kernel code. There are > > reasons for the kernel code using __[u]int*_t type variants (e.g. I > > think the endian conversion static checker requires the __ variants > > for host order variables), and so before making sweeping changes > > like this we need to ensure that we can make the equivalent changes > > to the kernel code as well... > > There is no functional requirement for these types. I'm not sure if > they are an IRIXism, or something that was added during the early > Linux port, but they certainly aren't nessecary. > > I'd love to kill them in favour or either the kernel __u/s types or the > C99 types which are like the urrent ones just without the __ prefix. > > Maybe we should get an agreement which ones we want and ask Felix for > a patch to the kernel tree? Either way is fine by me, but it's not a small patch - there's ~600 variables declared in fs/xfs with the __[u]int*_t types. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs