Re: new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Fair enough.

Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 09:05:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >... as long as we do not have typedef __kernel_foo_t foo_t in
>linux/types.h.
>> >
>> 
>> In the case of things like nlink_t and dev_t I would suggest we
>> explicitly call out the types as kernel and user.  I would suggest
>> knlink_t and unlink_t but the latter made me want to stab my eyes
>> out due to its confusion potential, so I wonder if we should
>> establish a new convention with _kt (kernel type) and _ut (user
>> type) suffixes, so nlink_kt and nlink_ut, alternatively one could
>> consider k_nlink_t and u_nlink_t.
>
>What the hell for?  _Which_ userland nlink_t, anyway?  We have quite a
>few
>struct stat variants in there.  Sorry, but I really don't see any point
>in that, and a lot of potential for confusion.  Marshalling is about
>the
>only thing we need the userland ones for and the code doing it is just
>fine
>with the only object of that type in sight being the field of e.g.
>struct stat
>with given name...

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.