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 A6FE17CA1 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 01:55:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C93A304039 for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Hh0kbiHdqqocgDtJ (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 23:55:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot03.posteo.de (dovecot03.posteo.de [172.16.0.13]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820D720AE6 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:55:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:54:10 +0200 From: Felix Janda Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Move to more stdint types Message-ID: <20160620065410.GB431@nyan> References: <20160618145330.GD17768@nyan> <20160620021226.GI26977@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160620021226.GI26977@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 04:53:30PM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > The uint*_t and int*_t are defined by C99 and should be prefered > > over the less portable __uint*_t and __int*_t variants. The > > necessary include is in platformdefs.h, which gets > > included in most places via libxfs.h. > > > > For now, only replace all __uint*_t types to uint*_t and likewise for > > __int*_t outside the directories include/ and libxfs/. > > > > Signed-off-by: Felix Janda > ..... > > 58 files changed, 502 insertions(+), 502 deletions(-) > > Because of the amount of churn this will cause outstanding patchsets > (e.g. the rmap/reflink work), this isn't the best time for us to be > committing tree-wide cleanups like this. Once we get the major > changes that are pending reviewed and committed I have no problems > with making these changes, so perhaps you could regenerate the patch > once those are merged? Of course. Thanks, Felix _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs