Re: [PATCH 29/30] microblaze_mmu_v1: stat.h MMU update

Sam Ravnborg
2009-04-27T12:46:42Z

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:37:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 27 April 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Why not use __u64/__u32 (and s32/s64 where appropriate)?
> > Historical baggage or a techncal reason?
>
> Yes, purely historical reasons: all architectures currently
> use the simple C types rather than __u32 in stat.h.
>
> I don't think it makes a difference either way, so I'd
> leave it like this unless you find a good reason for
> changing.

The reason I had was:
1) consistency. We say that we should use the width specific types in our interfaces
2) readability. We expect to see the kernel types used - so we know then and does not
start to wonder why we did not use them here.
3) documentation. The __{u,s}{32,64} documents the size better than "unsigned int" / long long" etc.

But no technical atrong arguments.

Sam