From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751415Ab2LUFsM (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:48:12 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:60861 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750908Ab2LUFsC (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:48:02 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <20121221051921.GQ4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <201211141218.02105.arnd@arndb.de> <20121221045731.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <50D3ECEB.1070401@zytor.com> <20121221050202.GP4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <50D3EE1A.7020703@zytor.com> <20121221051921.GQ4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:47:45 -0800 To: Al Viro CC: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Hogan Message-ID: <2a8cf990-8197-4a8f-854f-14b8fb65e9c2@email.android.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Fair enough. Al Viro 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.