Re: [PATCH 1/2] LogFS proper

["Jörn Engel" <joern@lazybastard.org>]

On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:52:53 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:58:27PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote:
> > 
> > Basically I prefer be64 over __be64 for similar reasons that most people
> > prefer u64 over __u64.  Others prefer uint64_t over both, but C99 hasn't
> > defined beint64_t yet.
> 
> There is a difference between "u64" and "__u64", so don't confuse the
> two, they are used for different things.
> 
> Same thing for your typedef above, you are confusing the usage of these
> types of variables, please do not do that.
> 
> In short, if the variable is going to cross the userspace/kernelspace
> boundry, use the "__" version, otherwise use the non-"--" version.

Complete agreement with one nitbit: there is not "be64" type defined as
of yet.

And in the current patch there is no userspace/kernelspace boundary
either, as both mkfs and fsck live in kernelspace.  When changing this I
will use __be64 and friends in the common header.

The remaining question is how to deal with kernel-only code that uses
be64.  Convert that to __be64 as well?  Or introduce be64 in
include/linix/types.h instead?

> And please don't use uint64_t in the kernel, I don't want to see that
> long flame-war again, read the archives for why those kinds of types
> don't matter for us in the kernel tree.

Trust me, I'm happy there is no beint64_t.  So enough of that.

Jörn

-- 
Eighty percent of success is showing up.
-- Woody Allen