Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:11:40 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Also, qsize_t is typedefed to a __u64. But u64's are a pain because > people keep trying to print them and they often forget the typecast > and they cause warning storms. > > > So until that gets fixed it'd be good to just do > > typedef unsigned long long qsize_t; > > which I think we can trivally do? > > > Why does qsize_t exist, anyway? It's always going to be 64-bit, so why > not open-code `unsigned long long' everywhere. Or u64? > > I guess it has some readability benefit in certain cases. It'd be a > damn sight more useful if we also got compiler typechecking for such > typedefs, but such is C... > There is always that: typedef unsigned long long __bitwise qsize_t; And that special "sparse" compiler. So I guess it would be checked by some people Boaz -- 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
