Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] xen/riscv: introduce asm/types.h header file

[Xenia Ragiadakou <burzalodowa@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/11/23 11:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.01.2023 09:47, Oleksii wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 10.01.2023 16:17, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in V3:
> > > >      - Nothing changed
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in V2:
> > > >      - Remove unneeded now types from <asm/types.h>
> > > I guess you went a little too far: Types used in common code, even if
> > > you
> > It looks then I didn't understand which one of types are needed.
> >
> > In "[PATCH v1 2/8] xen/riscv: introduce asm/types.h header file" all
> > types were introduced as most of them are used in <xen/types.h>:
> > __{u|s}{8|16|32|64}. Thereby it looks like the following types in
> > <asm/types.h> should be present from the start:
> >    typedef __signed__ char __s8;
> >    typedef unsigned char __u8;
> >
> >    typedef __signed__ short __s16;
> >    typedef unsigned short __u16;
> >
> >    typedef __signed__ int __s32;
> >    typedef unsigned int __u32;
> >
> >    #if defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)
> >    #if defined(CONFIG_RISCV_32)
> >      typedef __signed__ long long __s64;
> >      typedef unsigned long long __u64;
> >    #elif defined (CONFIG_RISCV_64)
> >      typedef __signed__ long __s64;
> >      typedef unsigned long __u64;
> >    #endif
> >    #endif
> >
> >   Then it turns out that there is no any sense in:
> >    typedef signed char s8;
> >    typedef unsigned char u8;
> >
> >    typedef signed short s16;
> >    typedef unsigned short u16;
> >
> >    typedef signed int s32;
> >    typedef unsigned int u32;
> >
> >    typedef signed long long s64;
> >    typedef unsigned long long u64;
> >      OR
> >    typedef signed long s64;
> >    typedef unsigned long u64;
> > As I understand instead of them should be used: {u|s}int<N>_t.
> Hmm, the situation is worse than I thought (recalled) it was: You're
> right, xen/types.h actually uses __{u,s}<N>. So I'm sorry for mis-
> guiding you; we'll need to do more cleanup first for asm/types.h to
> become smaller.
What is the reason for not declaring __{u,s}<N> directly in xen/types.h 
as type alias to {u,s}<N>?
IIUC __{u,s}<N> and {u,s}<N> are needed by code ported from Linux while 
Xen code should use {u|s}int<N>_t instead, right?
--
Xenia