From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753243AbbJOWjR (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:39:17 -0400 Received: from mail.kapsi.fi ([217.30.184.167]:56292 "EHLO mail.kapsi.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751997AbbJOWjQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:39:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:39:11 +0300 From: Mikko Rapeli To: Sowmini Varadhan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/79] rds.h: use __u8, __u16, __s16, __u32 and __s64 from linux/types.h Message-ID: <20151015223911.GH6104@lakka.kapsi.fi> References: <1444888618-4506-1-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> <1444888618-4506-24-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> <20151015110614.GL948@oracle.com> <20151015220025.GG6104@lakka.kapsi.fi> <20151015222105.GA12132@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151015222105.GA12132@oracle.com> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1bc8:1004::1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mikko.rapeli@iki.fi X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.kapsi.fi); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 06:21:05PM -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > On (10/16/15 01:00), Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > > > What kind of portability should exported userspace headers from Linux kernel > > need? > > > > Reviews to my previous changes NACKed usage and > > Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 5 says: > > > > (e) Types safe for use in userspace. > > > > In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot > > require C99 types and cannot use the 'u32' form above. Thus, we > > use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared > > with userspace. > > Let's be clear: we are not talking about u32 vs __u32, we are talking > about uint32_t vs __u32 in your patch. > > I dont have the context of your "previous changes NACKed.." etc. > Why can we not require C99 types in rds.h? Links to all previous reviews are here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/15/22 "uint32_t vs __u32" nail is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/1/160 > Why isnt that a problem for, say, which includes > ? isn't from Linux kernel, it comes from libc. is from Linux kernel and that does not include . But this brough to my attention so thanks for that. Maybe the vs. conflict could be resolved with it. -Mikko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mikko Rapeli Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/79] rds.h: use __u8, __u16, __s16, __u32 and __s64 from linux/types.h Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:39:11 +0300 Message-ID: <20151015223911.GH6104@lakka.kapsi.fi> References: <1444888618-4506-1-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> <1444888618-4506-24-git-send-email-mikko.rapeli@iki.fi> <20151015110614.GL948@oracle.com> <20151015220025.GG6104@lakka.kapsi.fi> <20151015222105.GA12132@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151015222105.GA12132-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Sowmini Varadhan Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "David S. Miller" , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 06:21:05PM -0400, Sowmini Varadhan wrote: > On (10/16/15 01:00), Mikko Rapeli wrote: > > > > What kind of portability should exported userspace headers from Linux kernel > > need? > > > > Reviews to my previous changes NACKed usage and > > Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 5 says: > > > > (e) Types safe for use in userspace. > > > > In certain structures which are visible to userspace, we cannot > > require C99 types and cannot use the 'u32' form above. Thus, we > > use __u32 and similar types in all structures which are shared > > with userspace. > > Let's be clear: we are not talking about u32 vs __u32, we are talking > about uint32_t vs __u32 in your patch. > > I dont have the context of your "previous changes NACKed.." etc. > Why can we not require C99 types in rds.h? Links to all previous reviews are here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/15/22 "uint32_t vs __u32" nail is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/1/160 > Why isnt that a problem for, say, which includes > ? isn't from Linux kernel, it comes from libc. is from Linux kernel and that does not include . But this brough to my attention so thanks for that. Maybe the vs. conflict could be resolved with it. -Mikko