On Fri, 2001-11-30 at 09:54, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > We need the same here, how about doing this instead:
> > >
> > > #ifdef __i386__
> > > typedef u_short ioaddr_t;
> > > #else
> > > typedef u_int ioaddr_t;
> > > #endif
> > That probably makes more sense. I wasn't sure if it's only x86 that
> > needs? ioaddr_t to be a 16 bit type.
> Is there any platform where making it int actually -breaks-.
I can't see how it would break anything ... but I've said that before.
It's not a variable which maps a hardware register, a protocol field,
etc, so it should be safe to just make it an int.
> At least for 2.5 it would seem a lot saner to just make it bigger and see