linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 29/30] microblaze_mmu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:48:39 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	monstr@...str.eu, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.williams@...alogix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/30] microblaze_mmu_v1: stat.h MMU update

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:37:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 27 April 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Why not use __u64/__u32 (and s32/s64 where appropriate)?
> > Historical baggage or a techncal reason?
> 
> Yes, purely historical reasons: all architectures currently
> use the simple C types rather than __u32 in stat.h.
> 
> I don't think it makes a difference either way, so I'd
> leave it like this unless you find a good reason for
> changing.

The reason I had was:
1) consistency. We say that we should use the width specific types in our interfaces
2) readability. We expect to see the kernel types used - so we know then and does not
                start to wonder why we did not use them here.
3) documentation. The __{u,s}{32,64} documents the size better than "unsigned int" / long long" etc.

But no technical atrong arguments.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/