[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CCD2580@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:37:41 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Lucas Tanure' <tanure@...ux.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"coreteam@...filter.org" <coreteam@...filter.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/4] netfilter: ipv4: use preferred kernel types
From: Lucas Tanure
> Sent: 30 January 2016 13:18
> As suggested by checkpatch.pl:
> CHECK: Prefer kernel type 'uX' over 'uintX_t'
One might ask why?
The kernel types are older, but the uintX_t ones are now part
of the C standard.
Writing header files (eg for ioctl buffers) that have to be
parsed by both userspace and kernel is a PITA unless the uintX_t
forms are used - at which point you have inconsistent names
in the same file.
At some point someone might decide that the uintX_t types are
preferred (as NetBSD did a few years ago) - so these changes
would get reverted.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists