> I'm not sure that this is entirely correct when it comes to sparse > endian notations or the way the __ types were intended to be used. > ISTR we used the __ types were originally for the in-memory endian > converted variable definitions that shadowed the on-disk structures. > The cleanup plan I was planning to do was to convert these all to > the linux kernel definitions of __[s,u][8,16,32,64] so it was clear > they shadow on disk structures of specific sizes. > > Once that was done, everything else could be converted to c99 types > (like you've done above) and then we'd be free of all the old > __[u]int*_t types.... Sparse doesn't care - what matters there are the __be* and __le* types. Otherwise it's just a decision if we want to use C99 or Linux types, and if we want to use Linux types if we want to use the __-prefixed ones to avoid name collisions in userspace. I'm fine either way - I'm used to typing uXX so that'd be my first preference, but the uintX_t is a close second, so I'd be perfectly fine with this patch: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> -- 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
