[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: flags_t

> >> No it wouldn't, on some architectures it is safe to do
> >> safe_flags() on a short type, like a short which can then be used
> >> in the architecture specific code.
> Cesar> Then the typedef could be architeture-specific. Or you could
> Cesar> use two typedefs.
> No it shouldn't, when using it in data structures you want it as is as
> unsigned long for proper alignment of data.

If that flag ends up in a structure, it's a bug.

> Wrong, a lot of people keep thinking lets add yet another 500
> typedef's but they don't buy you anything except complexity and
> confusion. You can still play games directly on the original data
> type.

What is complex about a typedef? It can increase readability, it makes
clear for what that variable has to used for and it clearly tells that
its value has to considered private.

bye, Roman

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.037 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site