[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzztct_HzmGiit=9SwwM4_YPuXbjwMdJpM1JHMXGBNqaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 15:50:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Use __kernel_long_t in struct timex
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> It also puts a clear line between the kernel and user space namespaces,
> which has been an ongoing problem (we *still* haven't cleaned out some
> namespace pollution in the i386 <asm/signal.h> for example.)
>
> That being said, this is a lot like the __u* and __s* types which we use
> instead of <stdint.h> for similar reasons. I don't know if
> __ulong/__slong or __uword/__sword would be better here?
Yes, I do think this is closer to the "__u32" kind of usage, and in
general I tend to think that's true of most of the __kernel_ prefix
things. There is very little "kernely" things about it.
Yes, we have to have the double underscore (or single+capitalized),
but I think that at least personally, I'd be happier with just
"__long" and "__ulong".
I think __word would be good too, *except* for the fact that
especially in x86 land, I think there's the legacy confusion with
"word" being 16-bit. Ugh.
So I don't know. I just do know that I don't see the point in that
"__kernel_" prefix.
Linus
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists