From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45434 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PaZ4K-0003Us-GE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:30:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaZ4J-0004kB-D2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:30:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47681) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PaZ4J-0004k3-5E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:30:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4D24C6E3.5040205@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:30:43 +0100 From: Jes Sorensen MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1294224062-18745-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> <4D247633.80304@codemonkey.ws> <4D2482D6.2030401@redhat.com> <4D24B8A1.9060801@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4D24B8A1.9060801@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Make strtosz() return int64_t instead of ssize_t List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com On 01/05/11 19:29, Anthony Liguori wrote: > I wouldn't make such bold claims but I'll concede that one is not > significantly better than the other and won't object to int64_t if you > feel strongly. The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that int64_t is the best solution. Since we can in theory have a system where we only allow 32 bit file system offsets, but have > 4GB of memory, int64_t does it best - it is more generic. Cheers, Jes