lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: kernel header separation
From
Date
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 00:22 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:16:04PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > On Fri Sep 05, 2003 at 03:41:54PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > i think all these _t types are ugly ;-(
> >
> > They may be ugly, but they are standardized and have very
> > precise meanings defined by ISO C99, which is a very good
> > thing for code interoperability...
>
> __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.

--
dwmw2

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.049 / U:2.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site