Re: [PATCH 1/2] LogFS proper

[JÃrn Engel]

On Tue, 8 May 2007 22:15:18 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 5/8/07, JÃrn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > +typedef __be16 be16;
> >> > +typedef __be32 be32;
> >> > +typedef __be64 be64;
> >>
> >> Why are those typedefs necessary ?
> >
> >Not strictly.  I tend to use the be* types fairly often in the code and
> >simply grew weary of seeing the underscores.
> >
> >Any objections if I seperate out the userspace headers and keep the
> >shorthands for kernel code only?
> 
> Not sure what you mean but I would prefer you drop the typedefs completely.

Basically I prefer be64 over __be64 for similar reasons that most people
prefer u64 over __u64.  Others prefer uint64_t over both, but C99 hasn't
defined beint64_t yet.

Maybe I should secretly patch include/linux/types.h to add these three
lines and bribe akpm's evil twin to merge that?  It definitely makes
more sense to have such a typedef in generic code or not at all.

JÃrn

-- 
Audacity augments courage; hesitation, fear.
-- Publilius Syrus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/