re: A simple cpufreq(9)

[matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost>]

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:17:43PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
>  > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:51:13PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>  > > Why advertise uint16_t, are we trying to save memory? I would just do
>  > > them uint32_t...
>  > 
>  > While few things are certain in computing, I don't think we are going to
>  > see a 65535 MHz processor any time soon. But sure, uint32_t is fine too.
> 
> Why not just "unsigned"? There doesn't seem to be any reason to size
> it explicitly...

for user/kernel APIs we try to use fixed-sized types and structures
so that 32/64 bit compat issues are elided.


.mrg.