![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 01.21, Albert Cahalan wrote: > Martin Hicks writes: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:24:34PM +0000, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:17:57PM -0800, john moser wrote: > > >>> It has come to my attention that in some places > >>> in the kernel, 'struct task_struct' is used; and > >>> in others, 'task_t' is used. Also, 'task_t' is > >>> 'typedef struct task_struct task_t;'. > >>> > >>> I made a small script to change around as much > >>> as I could so that everything uses task_t, > >> > >> What the fsck for? If anything, the opposite > >> (and removal of that typedef) would be preferable. > > > > John, > > > > As Al is trying to point out, we try to discourage > > the use of typedefs in the kernel. It is much > > easier to see that blah_t is really a struct if > > we always use 'struct blah'. > > That's no good for variable usage. We don't > write "struct current". > > You're giving the argument for Hungarian > notation. Not that I'd suggest it, but that > is where your argument leads. > > IMHO, we type too much already. > At least, don't be redundant. If you want explicit struct, let the type be 'struct task' (ie, kill the second _struct). If you want to use struct types as the rest of types, typedef a task_t. But 'struct task_struct' is redundand, long and ugly. -- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()able!es> \ Software is like sex: werewolf!able!es \ It's better when it's free Mandrake Linux release 10.0 (Cooker) for i586 Linux 2.6.1-jam4 (gcc 3.3.2 (Mandrake Linux 10.0 3.3.2-4mdk)) - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:00 [W:3.321 / U:0.090 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||