From: Lukas Czerner Subject: Re: Use of consistent types in e2fsprogs Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 08:32:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20110517011648.GC4953@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , Ext4 Developers List , Lukas Czerner To: Andreas Dilger Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60013 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752621Ab1EQGcy (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2011 02:32:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > I'm not suggesting a global search & replace of "long long" or anything. > However, the current mish-mash of int vs. long vs. dgrp_t for group numbers, > __u64 vs blk64_t, etc doesn't make it clear when something is intentionally > that type, or just happens to be working for now. Having separate types > for groups vs. physical blocks vs. logical blocks as we do in the kernel > will improve the quality of the code itself, I think. > > Cheers, Andreas > I have to agree with Andreas here, types in e2fsprogs are not consistent and I have encounter this several times, trying to decide which one is the best, looking for examples, and finding different uses in different parts of e2fsprogs tools. It is a mess. I think it is worth the core crunch I someone is willing to do the job. Thanks! -Lukas