linux-kernel - Re: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

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:	Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:16:25 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
Cc:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: checkpatch, a patch checking script.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:01:00 +0200 (MEST) Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> wrote:

> And since when is uint32_t wrong? What makes u32 or __u32 better?

There's not much to be said in favour of u32, really.  Except it's shorter
and I can never remember where the underscore goes in uint_32t.

If kernel used u_int32_t globally then the world would probably be a better
place.  But using just the one name has its advantages from a consistency
POV.

box:/usr/src/linux-2.6.21> grep -r '[   \(]u32' . | wc -l
39599
box:/usr/src/linux-2.6.21> grep -r '[   \(]uint32_t' . | wc -l 
5132

CodingStyle permits either variant, fwiw.
-
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/