From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:42:28 +1100
How's this one :-)
I don't think this is the way to go.
I think we really need to give the 32-bit compatability
types names and allow 64-bit arches to define what their
32-bit counterparts use.
For example, nlink_t is going to need to be different
for sparc 32-bit compat vs. most other platforms because
we use a signed short there.
Linus what is you big beef with the names used before, the "__kernel"
part of the name? We can't just use "u32" for ino_t althroughout the
compat32 code or whatever your idea seems to be.
Please clarify.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 30 2002 - 22:00:16 EST