From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758235AbXGAT0p (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:26:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756226AbXGAT0i (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:26:38 -0400 Received: from 81-174-11-161.static.ngi.it ([81.174.11.161]:49406 "EHLO mail.enneenne.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756183AbXGAT0i (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:26:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 21:27:55 +0200 From: Rodolfo Giometti To: David Woodhouse Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Message-ID: <20070701192755.GX13886@enneenne.com> References: <20070628084003.GQ13886@enneenne.com> <1183031060.1170.145.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070628161450.GD13886@enneenne.com> <1183117082.1170.308.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070629150813.GM13886@enneenne.com> <1183132548.1170.360.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070629163422.GP13886@enneenne.com> <1183135253.17622.5.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070630171340.GT13886@enneenne.com> <1183291392.2828.17.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1183291392.2828.17.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Organization: GNU/Linux Device Drivers, Embedded Systems and Courses X-PGP-Key: gpg --keyserver keyserver.linux.it --recv-keys D25A5633 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.32.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: giometti@enneenne.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS (with new syscalls API) - new version X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.enneenne.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 01:03:11PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Seems reasonable enough in principle -- but whatever you do, don't use > "long" for it. That would definitely need different behaviour for 32-bit > vs. 64-bit. Use explicitly sized types such as uint32_t or uint64_t. Which is the difference in using __u32 or uint32_t? Maybe is better defining the new struct as follow? struct pps_timedata_s { uint32_t sec; uint32_t nsec; } or as: struct pps_timedata_s { __u32 sec; __u32 nsec; } ? Thanks, Rodolfo -- GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@enneenne.com Linux Device Driver giometti@gnudd.com Embedded Systems giometti@linux.it UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127