On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 10:06 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: [...] >> I think with this semantic change, our proposals can reach common >> grounds >> and satisfy a wider group of users (i.e. filesystem developers). >> >> Christoph also suggested a similar treatment to typedef guid_t to >> struct uuid_le. >> I don't know the use cases enough to comment on that. > > We may go this way. But I wouldn't prevent current users of uuid_le to > continue using it without conversion (it may be done case by case after > we settle an API) > > So, summarize what Christoph said it will look like > > typedef uuid_be uuid_t; > typedef uuid_le guid_t > > uuid_cmp() / uuid_copy() / uuid_to_bin() / etc > guid_cmp() / guid_copy() / guid_to_bin() / etc > > Correct? Christoph? > That looks right to me. To complete the picture for folks not cc'ed on my patches, xfs use case suggests there is also justification for the additional helpers: uuid_is_null() / uuid_equal() guid_is_null() / guid_equal() Cheers, Amir. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
