Hi Dave,
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 23:58:10 -0800 (PST) "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:42:28 +1100
>
> How's this one :-)
>
> I don't think this is the way to go.
>
> I think we really need to give the 32-bit compatability
> types names and allow 64-bit arches to define what their
> 32-bit counterparts use.
OK, we can discuss that as well, but what do you think of the particular
patch that I supplied? It is independent of the naming of types. If I
can get linux/compat32.h and CONFIG_COMPAT32 started, the consolidation
will preceed fairly rapidly and I think that is far more important than
what the names look like ...
> For example, nlink_t is going to need to be different
> for sparc 32-bit compat vs. most other platforms because
> we use a signed short there.
This will be allowed for when linux/compat32.h includes asm/compat32.h
at a later stage. asm/compat32.h will be expected to have typedefs for
compat32_<type> (or __kernel_<type>32 whatever) for all the types that
vary between the architectures.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 22:00:17 EST