Re: daddr_t is inconsistent and barely used

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@ns.caldera.de>]

In article <9980.997929632@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> you wrote:
> daddr_t is barely used in the kernel.  2.4.8.
>
> The use of daddr_t in freevxfs may give different in core and disk
> layouts on different machines.  Is that intended?.

No, it may not.  Please double check.

> Do we still need daddr_t?

I think so, in fact we really should use daddr_t for all incore disk
addessing.

> This question was raised when I saw patches for ia64 that replaced u32
> with unsigned long because ia64 needs 64 bit.  Shouldn't we be using a
> consistent type that holds kernel addresses as numbers?  off_t and
> loff_t are not suitable.  caddr_t is close but uses char *, sometimes
> you want just a number.  What about defining kaddr_t?

vaddr_t?  That's consintant to virt_to_phys, virt_to_bus, etc.. and
what SVR5 uses.

	Christoph


-- 
Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX.