On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:46:34PM +0100, Felix Janda wrote: > Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Felix Janda wrote: > > > The uint*_t and int*_t are defined by C99 and should be prefered > > > over the less portable __uint*_t and __int*_t variants. The > > > necessary <stdint.h> include is in platformdefs.h, which gets > > > included in most places via libxfs.h. In the public headers > > > <stdint.h> is included in <xfs/xfs_types.h>. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felix Janda <felix.janda@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > I can't apply this straight off. Most of the libxfs code that is > > changed is shared with the kernel code, and so the definitions of > > the variables need to be the same as the kernel code. There are > > reasons for the kernel code using __[u]int*_t type variants (e.g. I > > think the endian conversion static checker requires the __ variants > > for host order variables), and so before making sweeping changes > > like this we need to ensure that we can make the equivalent changes > > to the kernel code as well... > > Thanks for the review! > > Sorry, I was not aware about this difference between the types. > > The simplest fix for musl would be to add defines or something similar > to linux.h. > > On the other hand, on the long run it would be preferable to use > the stdint types (consistently). Right, that's definitely the better solution. We can't just jump there in one go. :/ FWIW, changing everything outside libxfs/ and include/ should be ok to do straight away; it's just the libxfs stuff that we have other constraints on. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
