On Mon, May 01, 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 17:44 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > + (b) Clear integer types, where the abstraction _helps_ avoid confusion
> > + whether it is "int" or "long".
> > +
> > + u8/u16/u32 are perfectly fine typedefs.
>
> No, u8/u16/u32 are fall into category (d):
>
> (d) New types which are identical to standard C99 types, in certain
> exceptional circumstances.
>
> Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and
> brain to become accustomed to the standard types like 'uint32_t',
> some people object to their use anyway.
>
> Therefore, the gratuitous 'u8/u16/u32/u64' types and their signed
> equivalents which are identical to standard types are permitted --
> although they are not mandatory.
IMHO u32 etc. are the well established data types used
everywhere in kernel source. Your wording suggests that
the use of C99 types would be better, and while I respect
your personal opinion, I think it is wrong to put that in the
kernel CodingStyle document.
c.f. http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/12/14/127
Johannes
-
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/
[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]
