Re: [PATCH] Start of compat32.h (again)

[David S. Miller]

   From: Stephen Rothwell <[e-mail]>
   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.