On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 09:54, Alan Cox wrote: > > > We need the same here, how about doing this instead: > > > > > > #ifdef __i386__ > > > typedef u_short ioaddr_t; > > > #else > > > typedef u_int ioaddr_t; > > > #endif > > > > That probably makes more sense. I wasn't sure if it's only x86 that > > needs? ioaddr_t to be a 16 bit type. > > Is there any platform where making it int actually -breaks-. I can't see how it would break anything ... but I've said that before. It's not a variable which maps a hardware register, a protocol field, etc, so it should be safe to just make it an int. > At least for 2.5 it would seem a lot saner to just make it bigger and see Pete
