[PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Jan Engelhardt]

Hi Linus,


please cherrypick 35f2e577e432b28969710bc1fd4d9a4c0875f81b from
the git://computergmbh.de/linux repository from the "netfilter"
branch (or use patch below).

thanks,
Jan

==========

commit 35f2e577e432b28969710bc1fd4d9a4c0875f81b
Author: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
Date:   Wed Jan 2 17:30:18 2008 +0100

    linux/types.h: Use __u64 for aligned_u64
    
    Signed-off-by: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>

diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h
index f4f8d19..b94c0e4 100644
--- a/include/linux/types.h
+++ b/include/linux/types.h
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ typedef		__s64		int64_t;
 #endif
 
 /* this is a special 64bit data type that is 8-byte aligned */
-#define aligned_u64 unsigned long long __attribute__((aligned(8)))
+#define aligned_u64 __u64 __attribute__((aligned(8)))
 #define aligned_be64 __be64 __attribute__((aligned(8)))
 #define aligned_le64 __le64 __attribute__((aligned(8)))
 

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> please cherrypick 35f2e577e432b28969710bc1fd4d9a4c0875f81b from
> the git://computergmbh.de/linux repository from the "netfilter"
> branch (or use patch below).

Umm. This is missing an explanation of what exactly cares.. Does it 
actually fix some bogus warning, or is it just a cleanup? After -rc1, I 
care. After -rc5, I care a lot.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jan 2 2008 12:52, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> 
>> please cherrypick 35f2e577e432b28969710bc1fd4d9a4c0875f81b from
>> the git://computergmbh.de/linux repository from the "netfilter"
>> branch (or use patch below).
>
>Umm. This is missing an explanation of what exactly cares.. Does it 
>actually fix some bogus warning, or is it just a cleanup? After -rc1, I 
>care. After -rc5, I care a lot.
>
A cleanup. Or perhaps a precautionary change, should unsigned long
long ever become something that is not 64-bit. It was intended for
2.6.25 actually. You don't take patches this early, do you?


thanks,
Jan

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> A cleanup. Or perhaps a precautionary change, should unsigned long
> long ever become something that is not 64-bit. It was intended for
> 2.6.25 actually. You don't take patches this early, do you?

Yeah, no, I don't take patches early. I've considered setting up another 
branch for early patches, but decided that I'm (a) lazy and (b) better off 
encouraging people in the late -rc timeframe to just concentrate on the 
-rc's, not the next version.

		Linus

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jan 2 2008 13:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> A cleanup. Or perhaps a precautionary change, should unsigned long
>> long ever become something that is not 64-bit. It was intended for
>> 2.6.25 actually. You don't take patches this early, do you?
>
>Yeah, no, I don't take patches early. I've considered setting up another 
>branch for early patches, but decided that I'm (a) lazy and (b) better off 
>encouraging people in the late -rc timeframe to just concentrate on the 
>-rc's, not the next version.
>
Well you can also apply it right now, then it's done and life can go on.


Jan

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 2 2008 13:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>
> >> A cleanup. Or perhaps a precautionary change, should unsigned long
> >> long ever become something that is not 64-bit. It was intended for
> >> 2.6.25 actually. You don't take patches this early, do you?
> >
> >Yeah, no, I don't take patches early. I've considered setting up another 
> >branch for early patches, but decided that I'm (a) lazy and (b) better off 
> >encouraging people in the late -rc timeframe to just concentrate on the 
> >-rc's, not the next version.
>
> Well you can also apply it right now, then it's done and life can go 
> on.

which part of the "it's an unnecessary distraction" concept didnt you 
understand? We are in -rc6 and all the codebase is in deep freeze. Delay 
your patch to when the 2.6.25 merge window starts and life can go on.

	Ingo

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[Stefan Richter]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote:
>> Well you can also apply it right now,
...
> We are in -rc6 and all the codebase is in deep freeze. Delay 
> your patch to when the 2.6.25 merge window starts

I suggest Jan adds the explanation from
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/2/263 to the changelog and resends the patch
to Andrew + LKML.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- ---= --=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/

Re: [PATCH] Use __u64 in aligned_u64's definition

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:03:33 +0100

> 
> * Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote:
> 
> > Well you can also apply it right now, then it's done and life can go 
> > on.
> 
> which part of the "it's an unnecessary distraction" concept didnt you 
> understand? We are in -rc6 and all the codebase is in deep freeze. Delay 
> your patch to when the 2.6.25 merge window starts and life can go on.

Also, it's easy to just queue it up into whatever subsystem
tree you are current submitting patches into if you fear it
getting lost.

You can send it to Andrew Morton for the -mm tree, as another
alternative.

In any event, yes, trying to get Linus to apply it now is very
wrong and indeed distracting.