On Tue, 8 May 2007 22:15:18 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 5/8/07, Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > +typedef __be16 be16; > >> > +typedef __be32 be32; > >> > +typedef __be64 be64; > >> > >> Why are those typedefs necessary ? > > > >Not strictly. I tend to use the be* types fairly often in the code and > >simply grew weary of seeing the underscores. > > > >Any objections if I seperate out the userspace headers and keep the > >shorthands for kernel code only? > > Not sure what you mean but I would prefer you drop the typedefs completely. Basically I prefer be64 over __be64 for similar reasons that most people prefer u64 over __u64. Others prefer uint64_t over both, but C99 hasn't defined beint64_t yet. Maybe I should secretly patch include/linux/types.h to add these three lines and bribe akpm's evil twin to merge that? It definitely makes more sense to have such a typedef in generic code or not at all. Jörn -- Audacity augments courage; hesitation, fear. -- Publilius Syrus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
