On Tue, 8 May 2007 22:15:18 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 5/8/07, Jörn Engel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > +typedef __be16 be16;
> >> > +typedef __be32 be32;
> >> > +typedef __be64 be64;
> >>
> >> Why are those typedefs necessary ?
> >
> >Not strictly. I tend to use the be* types fairly often in the code and
> >simply grew weary of seeing the underscores.
> >
> >Any objections if I seperate out the userspace headers and keep the
> >shorthands for kernel code only?
>
> Not sure what you mean but I would prefer you drop the typedefs completely.
Basically I prefer be64 over __be64 for similar reasons that most people
prefer u64 over __u64. Others prefer uint64_t over both, but C99 hasn't
defined beint64_t yet.
Maybe I should secretly patch include/linux/types.h to add these three
lines and bribe akpm's evil twin to merge that? It definitely makes
more sense to have such a typedef in generic code or not at all.
Jörn
--
Audacity augments courage; hesitation, fear.
-- Publilius Syrus
-
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]
