This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] [3/3] dom0_ops explicitly sized types

To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] [3/3] dom0_ops explicitly sized types
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:21:23 +0200
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:21:46 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <44773BB3.1020103@xxxxxxxxxx> (Anthony Liguori's message of "Fri, 26 May 2006 12:32:35 -0500")
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1148509900.26460.22.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148511175.26460.35.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148511400.26460.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148511874.26460.47.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060525153957.GO6710@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148583731.15517.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060526133221.GA5569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148653733.24768.49.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148657437.26643.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148660853.24768.97.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44773BB3.1020103@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> If you use __u64, you'd need to include some header defining what __u64
>>> is, so you're requiring another header anyways. You might as well use
>>> the standard stdint.h rather than inventing your own.
>> As I understand it the issue is that the C spec makes the __* namespace
>> available for the kernel to pollute and reserves the non-prefixed
>> namespace for application usage. (Single underscore is for compiler or
>> libc internals or something).
> The relevant portions of the spec are:
> It's pretty clear that __* names are reserved.  The kernel is wrong
> here.  The best explanation I've gotten is "egocentrism" :-)

Reserved for what?  The `implementation'.  Which is the combination of
compiler, libc and whatever kernel headers libc lets through.  How
these guys divvy up their reserved name space is up to them, and we
better play by their rules.

Xen-devel mailing list