John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
quoted text
>>>> 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 ***
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/