lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: preempt-count oddities - still looking for comments :)
From
Date
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 22:05 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> Hmm, one downside to using "s32" instead of plain "int" is that not all
> thread_info.h files get asm/types.h pulled in and then won't have that
> type defined (m68knommu is one such as far as I can see). Would this make
> "int" prefered after all or should I just include asm/types.h where needed
> or just include it everywhere? seems logical that the file that uses
> header includes it directly instead of it getting included implicitly by
> other headers (like i386 where thread_info.h includes asm/page.h that then
> includes asm/mmx.h that then includes linux/types.h that finally includes
> asm/types.h).
> Personally I'd just add the asm/types.h include to all the thread_info.h
> files (or go back to using int) - what's your preference?

Well, guess it depends how much we like s32 over int. Both are
identical on all supported architectures, so it is just a style issue,
really.

If m68knommu is the only arch needing asm/typed.h included, I'd so just
include it. If more and more arches need it, just go with int.

It is probably an easier sell.

Robert Love




-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-26 22:35    [W:0.570 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site