From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263696AbTDTVAV (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:00:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263697AbTDTVAV (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:00:21 -0400 Received: from rth.ninka.net ([216.101.162.244]:35029 "EHLO rth.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263696AbTDTVAU (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:00:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] new system call mknod64 From: "David S. Miller" To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Cc: hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1050873133.26264.1.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 20 Apr 2003 14:12:14 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2003-04-20 at 13:34, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote: > Yesterday or the day before Linus preferred __u32 etc for this > loopinfo64 ioctl, so I did it that way. Here, since mknod is a > traditional Unix system call, I am still inclined to prefer > (unsigned) int above __u32. Of course it doesn't matter much. To 64-bit platforms implementing 32-bit compatability layers, it can matter a ton to use portable vs. non-portable types. -- David S. Miller