Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:05:30 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t |
| |
On 12/20/2012 09:02 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 09:00:27PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 12/20/2012 08:57 PM, Al Viro wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:18:01PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> >>>> The other types that are used as 64 bit on x32 are ino_t, nlink_t, >>>> size_t, ssize_t, ptrdiff_t, and off_t. >>> >>> *Kernel-side* we should not give a damn about the userland nlink_t, period. >>> Making it architecture-dependent had been a bad mistake that essentially >>> made nlink_t useless for the kernel. That mistake had been fixed; please, >>> do not bring it back. If some userland structure needs to include a field >>> encoding nlink_t values, please use an explicitly-sized type when refering >>> to it kernel-side. >>> >> >> We should never use userland types per se. We can use __kernel_*_t >> typedefs to make the kernel headers neater if it makes sense, but that >> is often not even necessary. > > ... as long as we do not have typedef __kernel_foo_t foo_t in linux/types.h. >
In the case of things like nlink_t and dev_t I would suggest we explicitly call out the types as kernel and user. I would suggest knlink_t and unlink_t but the latter made me want to stab my eyes out due to its confusion potential, so I wonder if we should establish a new convention with _kt (kernel type) and _ut (user type) suffixes, so nlink_kt and nlink_ut, alternatively one could consider k_nlink_t and u_nlink_t.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |