[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 08:06:20 +0200
From: Petr Vorel <petr.vorel@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] define daddr_t type
Hi Rich,
> > ....
> > > > +++ b/include/sys/types.h
> > > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ extern "C" {
> > > > #define __NEED_clock_t
> > > > #define __NEED_suseconds_t
> > > > #define __NEED_blksize_t
> > > > +#define __NEED_daddr_t
> > ....
> > > daddr_t is not a standard type, so can't be exposed by default here
> > > (aside from the dubious "*_t is always reserved" rule), and it's only
> > So should it be wrapped by #if defined(_GNU_SOURCE) || defined(_BSD_SOURCE) ?
> > > proposed to be used in one header, so it doesn't belong in alltypes.h
> > > either.
> > Where should it be then? Shell I create bits/types.h for it?
> > The goal is to be loadable from <sys/types.h>
> Why? It's not a reasonable type for any application to use -- we've
> never gotten a report that something failed to build because of its
> absence, and even if we did, it would almost surely be a case of "fix
> the application". It looks like the only reason you wanted it was to
> fix the type of a field in an mtio structure, and in that case the
> type would just need to be defined in mtio.h.
I need it for LTP [1]. It's actually workaround for missing struct ustat [2].
If it's really useless to have it in musl, I'll use in LTP __kernel_daddr_t from <linux/types.h>.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1102380/
[2] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/include/lapi/ustat.h
> Rich
Kind regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
