[change to new linux-xfs list] On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:07:49PM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:35:00AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 01:33:32AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 07:38:35PM +0200, Felix Janda wrote: > > > > > Replace them by the more widely used uint*_t and int*_t. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felix Janda <felix.janda@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > This patch is essentially a global > > > > > 'sed -i "s/__\(u*\)int\([0-9]*\)_t/\1int\2_t/"'. The only other changes > > > > > are whitespace changes and removing the now unecessary type definitions. > > > > > > > > > > Running 'sed "s/^.//"' on the patch might be useful for checking that > > > > > I didn't mess up the indentation. > > > > > > > > If everyone is fine using (u)int*_t over s*/u* this looks good. I'd > > > > have a slight preference for s*/u* as in the rest of the kernel, but > > > > either way getting rid of our crazy __ types is a good thing. > > > > > > Don't really care that much. I'd prefer (marginally) to go with the > > > (u)int*_t types as userspace then doesn't need a set of typedefs in > > > the platform headers to support the kernel specific types in libxfs > > > code.... > > > > I don't mind moving from __uintXX_t to uintXX_t so long as the changes > > land in the kernel and xfsprogs at the same time. > > When everyone is ok with the changes, I'll prepare patches for both of > them. Hmm... perhaps it is time to revisit this, now that reflink has landed? --D > > --Felix > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
