[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Header files and the kernel ABI
    On Thu Jul 25, 2002 at 09:17:40AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > Brad Hards wrote:
    > >
    > >I like it (having just argued for it), except for the __s* and __u*.
    > >The ABI definitions aren't for kernel programmers. They are for
    > >userspace programmers. So we should use standard types,
    > >even if they are a bit ugly (and uint16_t isn't really much uglier
    > >than __u16, and at least it doesn't carry connotations of
    > >something that is meant to be internal, which is what the standard
    > >double-underscore convention means).
    > >
    > Not quite -- it means they are implementation-specific (in this case,
    > Linux-specific.) The Linux __s* and __u* predates <stdint.h>; I
    > certainly would like to migrate to <stdint.h> but I don't see it as a
    > very high priority.

    Using stdint.h types at least in the kernel ABI headers would be
    a _huge_ improvement! I hate having to cut-n-paste kernel structs
    into my user-spave code and then rework the types so user-space
    code can compile things.


    Erik B. Andersen
    --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.042 / U:3.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site