Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Denis Vlasenko <> | | Subject | Re: [rfc] epoll interface change and glibc bits ... | | Date | Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:08:16 -0200 |
| |
On 20 November 2002 22:33, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:57:26PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > What were you thinking? 1X64 bit or 2X32 bit? > > > > typedef union epoll_obj { > > void *ptr; > > __uint32_t u32[2]; > > __uint64_t u64; > > } epoll_obj_t; > > I'm open to suggestions though. The "ptr" enable me to avoid wierd > > casts to avoid gcc screaming. > > It looks fine to me for as long as we can guarantee that sizeof(void > *) will be less than or equal to sizeof(__uint64_t) (relatively > safe). > > I still prefer 'userdata' over 'obj', but the name of thing is not > very important to me. > > I'm not sure if this is wise or not, but an 'fd' member might be > useful as well: > > typedef union epoll_obj { > void *ptr; > int fd; > __uint32_t u32[2]; > __uint64_t u64; > } epoll_obj_t;
u32 and u64 sounds more like type name. d32 / d64 ? -- vda - 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/
|  |