On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:48:46AM -0700, Paul Stewart wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > >Q2. > >Is there any reason why the structures in <linux/hiddev.h> don't use > >standardised types? For example, hiddev_devinfo should probably look > >something like: > > > >[...] > > > >Do we want to change part of the interface, all of the interface, or > >none of the interface to userspace? > > The types used in hiddev.h are mostly a direct copy from field names > in hid.h. If those fields were standardized (e.g, if I were certain > the size of "unsigned" would the same as uint32_t) I'd use the > appropriate types. I could have used the standardized types for the > remaining fields I created for hiddev, that would be uglier. I > advocate the re-typing of hid.h and hiddev.h simultaneously. For the > record, I vote for "uint*_t", but this is obviously a religious > choice.
If the structure is going to be exported from the kernel, then __u16 and __u32 should be used, as they are the proper types for this. These types are portable accross all platforms. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
