From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:35342 "EHLO mail-ua0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S939150AbdDTIG2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 04:06:28 -0400 Received: by mail-ua0-f174.google.com with SMTP id f10so41982741uaa.2 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 01:06:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170420000909.GI12369@dastard> References: <20170419153025.10368-1-jtulak@redhat.com> <20170420000909.GI12369@dastard> From: Jan Tulak Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:06:07 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mkfs: unify numeric types of main variables in main() Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote: >> Followup of my "[xfsprogs] Do we need so many data types for user input?" email. >> This version has bool for flags and uses PRIu64 for printing 64bit values. >> >> Other issues from RFC, that I didn't get a satisfactory feedback to: >> * __uint64_t is used because it is declared in xfsprogs, so unless there is a >> reason to not use it (e.g. the declared type is just for some special use, >> or is obsolete), I'm sticking to it. > > uint64_t is a standard C99 type. Please use it over an internal > type that we plan to get rid of. i.e. > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2016-01/msg00386.html > > These patches were never finalised/finished because of conflicts > with all the COW work that was pending at the time. This type > conversion still needs to be picked up and finished... > Thanks, Dave. I will turn it to the standard type. Jan > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com -- Jan Tulak jtulak@redhat.com / jan@tulak.me