[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120912111330.GD19396@mwanda>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:13:30 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Jens Taprogge <jens.taprogge@...rogge.org>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
industrypack-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/20] Staging: ipack/bridges/tpci200: provide new
callbacks to tpci200
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:28:33AM +0200, Jens Taprogge wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:47:02AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > +static int tpci200_get_clockrate(struct ipack_device *dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct tpci200_board *tpci200 = check_slot(dev);
> > > + __le16 __iomem *addr;
> >
> > The point of the underscores in the __le16 is that you don't want to
> > pollute user space headers in glibc with a bunch of kernel typedefs.
> > It is not needed here. (Or if it is, then we would need to replace
> > the u16 uses as well).
>
> I was under the impression that "__le16" is used to indicate the
> byteorder of the pointed to memory. As far as I can see that
> information is lost when we use u16. Am I missing something?
>
Use the no-underscore version unless it's inside a header which is
exported to userspace.
le16 __iomem *addr;
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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