Re: daddr_t is inconsistent and barely used

Christoph Hellwig (hch@ns.caldera.de)
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:57:34 +0200

In article <9980.997929632@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> you wrote:
> daddr_t is barely used in the kernel. 2.4.8.
>
> The use of daddr_t in freevxfs may give different in core and disk
> layouts on different machines. Is that intended?.

No, it may not. Please double check.

> Do we still need daddr_t?

I think so, in fact we really should use daddr_t for all incore disk
addessing.

> This question was raised when I saw patches for ia64 that replaced u32
> with unsigned long because ia64 needs 64 bit. Shouldn't we be using a
> consistent type that holds kernel addresses as numbers? off_t and
> loff_t are not suitable. caddr_t is close but uses char *, sometimes
> you want just a number. What about defining kaddr_t?

vaddr_t? That's consintant to virt_to_phys, virt_to_bus, etc.. and
what SVR5 uses.

Christoph

-- 
Whip me.  Beat me.  Make me maintain AIX.
-
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/