John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
I think it's like it is just to be consistent with abs() in C,
which also contains labs() and llabs().
We actually had labs() before (few months ago), but since it was not
used, and if it would it seemed better to just fix abs(), it was
removed. So I think this is the appropriate way to go.
Sounds like when someone actually needs labs() or llabs()
they can submit a patch for however they would like to use it.
However they would like to use *abs()? What different ways are possible to
take the arithmetic absolute value? I see record of many cases where
dozens of authors have macros that then get collapsed to include files. So
why not avoid that annoyance this time and -start- with it in the include
files?
Can there even be any reason beyond unnecessary pedantics to have
[l[l]]abs?
See Paragraph 1 above. We do lots of functions in a manner that is
like C (or libc) so that we don't confuse developers.
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/