Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:25:45 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: kernel header separation |
| |
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:12:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Llu, 2003-09-08 at 14:38, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > __u8 has a very precise meaning defined by Linux. If you're including > > > a Linux header. that's what you need to worry about. > > > > It's a kernel-private type. If we're aiming for a clean set of headers, > > then ideally we should avoid gratuitously defining our own types when > > standards already exist. > > __u8 is intended to be used by non kernel stuff for headers. Thats why > "__u8" not "u8" - so it doesnt pollute the sacred posix name space and > have us lynched by glibc people
Well, strictly speaking, __u8 is an internal gcc not kernel type.
Now that C99 has defined size-based types, I would prefer that we start using those... They are a bit more verbose than "u8" but I think look better, and more important, are more portable in the long term than __u8.
Whenever I see "__u8", I think "non-standard, gcc-specific dependency"
Jeff
- 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/
| |