Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: kernel header separation | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:38:23 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |