Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Aug 2022 10:04:01 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] Many pages: Document fixed-width types with ISO C naming | From | Alejandro Colomar <> |
| |
On 8/25/22 09:44, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On 8/25/22 07:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 01:36:10AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: >>> But from your side what do we have? Just direct NAKs without much >>> explanation. The only one who gave some explanation was Greg, and he >>> vaguely pointed to Linus's comments about it in the past, with no >>> precise >>> pointer to it. I investigated a lot before v2, and could not find >>> anything >>> strong enough to recommend using kernel types in user space, so I >>> pushed v2, >>> and the discussion was kept. >> >> So despite me saying that "this is not ok", and many other maintainers >> saying "this is not ok", you applied a patch with our objections on it? >> That is very odd and a bit rude. >> >>> I would like that if you still oppose to the patch, at least were >>> able to >>> provide some facts to this discussion. >> >> The fact is that the kernel can not use the namespace that userspace has >> with ISO C names. It's that simple as the ISO standard does NOT >> describe the variable types for an ABI that can cross the user/kernel >> boundry. > > I understand that. But user-space programs are allowed to use the > standard types when calling a syscall that really uses kernel types. > > IMHO, it should be irrelevant for the user how the kernel decides to > call a 64-bit unsigned integer, right? > > Or do you mean that some of the pages I modified
... are intended mostly for kernel-space programmers?
> >> >> Work with the ISO C standard if you wish to document such type usage, >> and get it approved and then we would be willing to consider such a >> change. But until then, we have to stick to our variable name types, >> just like all other operating systems have to (we are not alone here.) >> >> Please revert your change. > > Thanks for asking nicely. > > Since there's ongoing discussion, and I don't want to make it look like > ignoring it, I've reverted the patch for now. If I apply it again, I > hope that it will be with some more consensus, as I've always tried to > do. Sorry if I was a bit irascible yesterday. Shit happens. > > TL;DR: Patch reverted; asking nicely works. =) > >> >> greg k-h > > Cheers, > > Alex >
-- Alejandro Colomar <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |