On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It also puts a clear line between the kernel and user space namespaces,
> which has been an ongoing problem (we *still* haven't cleaned out some
> namespace pollution in the i386 <asm/signal.h> for example.)
>
> That being said, this is a lot like the __u* and __s* types which we use
> instead of <stdint.h> for similar reasons. I don't know if
> __ulong/__slong or __uword/__sword would be better here?
Yes, I do think this is closer to the "__u32" kind of usage, and in
general I tend to think that's true of most of the __kernel_ prefix
things. There is very little "kernely" things about it.
Yes, we have to have the double underscore (or single+capitalized),
but I think that at least personally, I'd be happier with just
"__long" and "__ulong".
I think __word would be good too, *except* for the fact that
especially in x86 land, I think there's the legacy confusion with
"word" being 16-bit. Ugh.
So I don't know. I just do know that I don't see the point in that
"__kernel_" prefix.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
