Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 May 2006 02:37:55 +0200 | From | Johannes Stezenbach <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] CodingStyle: add typedefs chapter |
| |
On Mon, May 01, 2006, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 17:44 -0700, 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. > > No, u8/u16/u32 are fall into category (d): > > (d) New types which are identical to standard C99 types, in certain > exceptional circumstances. > > Although it would only take a short amount of time for the eyes and > brain to become accustomed to the standard types like 'uint32_t', > some people object to their use anyway. > > Therefore, the gratuitous 'u8/u16/u32/u64' types and their signed > equivalents which are identical to standard types are permitted -- > although they are not mandatory.
IMHO u32 etc. are the well established data types used everywhere in kernel source. Your wording suggests that the use of C99 types would be better, and while I respect your personal opinion, I think it is wrong to put that in the kernel CodingStyle document.
c.f. http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/12/14/127
Johannes - 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/
| |