On Tue, 8 May 2007 15:52:53 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:58:27PM +0200, J??rn Engel wrote: > > > > 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. > > There is a difference between "u64" and "__u64", so don't confuse the > two, they are used for different things. > > Same thing for your typedef above, you are confusing the usage of these > types of variables, please do not do that. > > In short, if the variable is going to cross the userspace/kernelspace > boundry, use the "__" version, otherwise use the non-"--" version. Complete agreement with one nitbit: there is not "be64" type defined as of yet. And in the current patch there is no userspace/kernelspace boundary either, as both mkfs and fsck live in kernelspace. When changing this I will use __be64 and friends in the common header. The remaining question is how to deal with kernel-only code that uses be64. Convert that to __be64 as well? Or introduce be64 in include/linix/types.h instead? > And please don't use uint64_t in the kernel, I don't want to see that > long flame-war again, read the archives for why those kinds of types > don't matter for us in the kernel tree. Trust me, I'm happy there is no beint64_t. So enough of that. Jörn -- Eighty percent of success is showing up. -- Woody Allen - 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
