From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: jdl@freescale.com To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 07:52:11 -0500 Message-Id: Sender: Jon Loeliger Subject: Re: PATCH ppc Merge asm-ppc*/posix_types.h List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:43:52 -0500 jdl at freescale.com wrote: > > > > +#ifdef __powerpc64__ > > +typedef unsigned long __kernel_nlink_t; > > +typedef int __kernel_ipc_pid_t; > > +typedef unsigned long __kernel_size_t; > > +typedef long __kernel_ssize_t; > > +typedef unsigned long __kernel_old_dev_t; > > +#else > > +typedef unsigned short __kernel_nlink_t; > > +typedef short __kernel_ipc_pid_t; > > +typedef unsigned int __kernel_size_t; > > +typedef int __kernel_ssize_t; > > +typedef unsigned int __kernel_old_dev_t; > > +#endif > > On 32 bit, int == long, so the last three could be removed from the ifdef > by making them {unsigned }long ... Yeah, I tried that too. In the ppc32 tree, it just starts looking nasty all over the place: CC drivers/pci/pci-driver.o fs/proc/base.c: In function `seccomp_write': fs/proc/base.c:932: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast net/sunrpc/svcsock.c: In function `svc_sendto': net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:424: warning: unsigned int format, size_t arg (arg 4) net/sunrpc/svcsock.c: In function `svc_recvfrom': net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:477: warning: unsigned int format, size_t arg (arg 4) Lots of others just like it: CC lib/klist.o net/core/dev.c: In function `dev_ifsioc': net/core/dev.c:2293: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast net/core/dev.c:2304: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast Pick your favorite subsystem! :-) I opted to maintain current breakage rather than try to fix anything and introduce new breakage. :-) I think that the approach we're taking here of placing the related-but-differing-by-a-__powerpc64__ concepts as close to each other as possible is a good one. In particular it calls attention to it, and causes people to wonder "Why is _that_ there? Why don't we just combine it like so..." And we probably should. It is just biting off more than we likely should at this step. Later, yes. jdl PS -Sorry about breaking threading; different MUA here.