From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6577F37 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:03:04 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE638AC004 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:03:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id sYU08B1OBpdESfK2 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:02:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:02:40 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Move from __uint*_t types to uint*_t and likewise for __int*_t Message-ID: <20160112220240.GO10456@dastard> References: <20160112195935.GB568@nyan> <20160112212405.GL10456@dastard> <20160112214634.GC10558@nyan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160112214634.GC10558@nyan> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Felix Janda Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:46:34PM +0100, Felix Janda wrote: > Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 08:59:35PM +0100, Felix Janda wrote: > > > The uint*_t and int*_t are defined by C99 and should be prefered > > > over the less portable __uint*_t and __int*_t variants. The > > > necessary include is in platformdefs.h, which gets > > > included in most places via libxfs.h. In the public headers > > > is included in . > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Felix Janda > > > > I can't apply this straight off. Most of the libxfs code that is > > changed is shared with the kernel code, and so the definitions of > > the variables need to be the same as the kernel code. There are > > reasons for the kernel code using __[u]int*_t type variants (e.g. I > > think the endian conversion static checker requires the __ variants > > for host order variables), and so before making sweeping changes > > like this we need to ensure that we can make the equivalent changes > > to the kernel code as well... > > Thanks for the review! > > Sorry, I was not aware about this difference between the types. > > The simplest fix for musl would be to add defines or something similar > to linux.h. > > On the other hand, on the long run it would be preferable to use > the stdint types (consistently). Right, that's definitely the better solution. We can't just jump there in one go. :/ FWIW, changing everything outside libxfs/ and include/ should be ok to do straight away; it's just the libxfs stuff that we have other constraints on. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs