Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:46:36 +0100 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [EXT] Re: [net-next, 1/2] enetc: Configure the Time-Aware Scheduler via tc-taprio offload |
| |
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:54:29AM +0000, Claudiu Manoil wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Po Liu <po.liu@nxp.com> > [...] > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com> > [...] > >> > +/* class 5, command 0 */ > >> > +struct tgs_gcl_conf { > >> > + u8 atc; /* init gate value */ > >> > + u8 res[7]; > >> > + union { > >> > + struct { > >> > + u8 res1[4]; > >> > + __le16 acl_len; > >> > >> Given that u* types are used in this structure I think le16 would be more > >> appropriate than __le16. > > > >Here keep the same code style of this .h file. I think it is better to have > >another patch to fix them all. Do you agree? > > > > I don't see why "le16" would be more appropriate than "__le16" in this context. > The "__leXX" types are widely used in kernel drivers and not only, to annotate the > endianess of the hardware. These are generic types defined din "include/uapi/linux/types.h". > Whereas "leXX" are defined in "fs/ntfs/types.h", and there's no usage of these types > in other h/w device drivers (I didn't find any). Am I missing anything?
My point is a cosmetic one: I think that __u8 goes with __le16, while u8 goes with le16.
| |