[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.01.1208022145380.30631@frira.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 21:50:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
cc: "Andrew Stiegmann (stieg)" <astiegmann@...are.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, pv-drivers@...are.com,
vm-crosstalk@...are.com, cschamp@...are.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [vmw_vmci 11/11] Apply the header code to make VMCI build
On Friday 2012-07-27 12:34, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>> +#ifndef _VMCI_COMMONINT_H_
>> +#define _VMCI_COMMONINT_H_
>> +
>> +#include <linux/printk.h>
>> +#include <linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h>
>
>Use inverse chrismas tree here.
>Longer include lines first, and soret alphabetically when
>lines are of the same length.
So that's where unreadable include lists come from.
Depth-first lexicographically-sorted is a lot less hassle,
especially when it comes to merging patches that each
add one different include.
>> +/*
>> + * Utilility function that checks whether two entities are allowed
>> + * to interact. If one of them is restricted, the other one must
>> + * be trusted.
>> + */
>> +static inline bool vmci_deny_interaction(uint32_t partOne,
>> + uint32_t partTwo)
>
>The kernel types are u32 not uint32_t - these types belongs in user-space.
Not really. uint32_t is the C99 type for a 32-bit quantity, and I see
absolutely zero reason not to use standardized things. The only
exception are header files visible to user space where __u32 should
be used for (obscure) reasons of avoiding naming clashes.
(Obscure because uint32_t is always supposed to be 32 bits.)
--
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