[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120621071319.GC5106@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:13:19 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>, xfs@....sgi.com,
joe@...ches.com, bpm@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] types.h: implement intptr_t and uintptr_t
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:02:32AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 03:52:16AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I'd really like to get Jans type cleanups in XFS in for the next
> > merge window. Given the lack of feedback on lkml in favor or
> > against (u)intptr_t I'm tempted to add them to xfs_linux.h for now,
> > and then do another push to propagate them to kernel-wide types later.
> >
> > Is that fine with everybody?
>
> I'd just push it into the XFS tree and into linux-next. It's a
> relatively harmless set of changes, and if nobody cares enough about
> it except us, just push it and see what happens when people start
> noticing the conflicts it might cause....
Given that's it's been out on lkml for a while that sounds at least
okay-ish. I just fear we might get dragged into a long discussion when
then pull request is sent. Just adding the types locally and moving
them to types.h in a single patch avoids that.
--
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