Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)

Nicholas wrote:
> If _Bool does end up in the user-kernel ABI

I'd be inclined to not put a _Bool in that ABI.
I'd stick with the scalar ints and such we have now.

The benefits of compile type checking are weaker
across that ABI, and the demands of compatibility
much higher than they are for kernel internals.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)
    • From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)
    • From: Nicholas Miell <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Hello, We have IP100A Linux driver need to submit to 2.6.x kernel
• Next by Date: ptrace bugs and related problems
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]