From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:27:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:27:24 -0400 Received: from imap.laposte.net ([213.30.181.7]:8368 "EHLO smtp.laposte.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 07:27:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3D43C990.5030503@laposte.net> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 13:38:08 +0300 From: Johann Deneux Reply-To: johann.deneux@it.uu.se User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brad Hards CC: Vojtech Pavlik , linuxconsole-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Event API changes - EVIOCGID References: <200207212050.56616.bhards@bigpond.net.au> <200207281745.37751.bhards@bigpond.net.au> <20020728102256.B12268@ucw.cz> <200207281842.18988.bhards@bigpond.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Brad Hards wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:22, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > [...] > >>__u* is used extensively in the input API anyway, so you'd have to >>explain it to userspace programmers nevertheless. So I prefer keeping >>the input.h include use just one type of explicit sized types. > > So do I, and it had better be a standard type. > > Note that the input API does *NOT* use __u* extensively. In fact > if you take out the force feedback stuff (which Johannes already (Just a detail: my name is Johann) > agreed to change:), this is the *only* _u* usage in any part of the > input API. > I did this change in the past, but it was undone (not by me), as it would break user-space applications. I definitely agree to use uint16_t. > >>Sure, we can change them all to uint*_t, but then do it all at once and >>provide a satisfactory explanation for it. ;) > > I am doing it all. Johannes agreed to the change, and I did the only > other required entry. If Johannes agrees, I'll do the trivial changes > for force-feedback. Ok with me. > The reason why I am not doing it all at once is to provide patches > that do one API change at a time. Or, depending on how you look > at it, I did the only change all-at-once, and you reverted it :) > > Brad > -- Johann Deneux