From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754912AbYHXJle (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:41:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751041AbYHXJl0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:41:26 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:55826 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751850AbYHXJlZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:41:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 3] add phys_addr_t for holding physical addresses From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Andrew Morton , ehabkost@redhat.com, Paul Mackerras , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <73196c9129c7298f2428.1219176170@localhost> References: <73196c9129c7298f2428.1219176170@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:39:58 +1000 Message-Id: <1219570798.21386.213.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org .../... > diff --git a/include/asm-x86/page_32.h b/include/asm-x86/page_32.h > --- a/include/asm-x86/page_32.h > +++ b/include/asm-x86/page_32.h > @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ > typedef u64 pudval_t; > typedef u64 pgdval_t; > typedef u64 pgprotval_t; > -typedef u64 phys_addr_t; .../... Might sound a stupid question, but why have a CONFIG_ option and a global definition based on it rather than each arch defining it as part of the base types ? I don't have a firm preference for one or the other at this point, I can see pro and cons to both approach, so I'm curious to see what others think about it. Cheers, Ben.