Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 1 May 2006 17:23:24 -0400 (EDT) | | From | Daniel Barkalow <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: add typedefs chapter |
| |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, 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. > + > + NOTE! Again - there needs to be a _reason_ for this. If something is > + "unsigned long", then there's no reason to do > + > + typedef long myflags_t; > + > + but if there is a clear reason for why it under certain circumstances > + might be an "unsigned int" and under other configurations might be > + "unsigned long", then by all means go ahead and use a typedef. > + > + (c) when you use sparse to literally create a _new_ type for > + type-checking.
Is there an official position on "typedef unsigned __bitwise__ myflags_t"? That is, getting into case (c) with something not particularly useful for typechecking, just because you want to use a typedef.
I don't remember if the gfp_t thing was only done because it would catch a very common type of bug, or if it's generally suggested for new code.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* - 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/
|  |