Re: preempt-count oddities - still looking for comments :)

[Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Robert Love wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 22:05 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, one downside to using "s32" instead of plain "int" is that not all 
> > thread_info.h files get asm/types.h pulled in and then won't have that 
> > type defined (m68knommu is one such as far as I can see). Would this make 
> > "int" prefered after all or should I just include asm/types.h where needed 
> > or just include it everywhere? seems logical that the file that uses 
> > header includes it directly instead of it getting included implicitly by 
> > other headers (like i386 where thread_info.h includes asm/page.h that then 
> > includes asm/mmx.h that then includes linux/types.h that finally includes 
> > asm/types.h).
> > Personally I'd just add the asm/types.h include to all the thread_info.h 
> > files (or go back to using int) - what's your preference?
> 
> Well, guess it depends how much we like s32 over int.  Both are
> identical on all supported architectures, so it is just a style issue,
> really.
> 
> If m68knommu is the only arch needing asm/typed.h included, I'd so just
> include it.  If more and more arches need it, just go with int.
> 
Quite a few would need it (I just checked), so I'll just stick to int.

Thank you for taking the time to reply and comment on this very low 
priority thing. It's appreciated.

-- 
Jesper


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/