lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names
    On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 12:03:16PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
    > On 4.1.2012 09:14, Guillem Jover wrote:
    > > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 07:56:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 02:22:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
    > >>> Guillem Jover wrote:
    > >>>> On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the
    > >>>> equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the
    > >>>> Linux tree use that convention too (e.g. perf). The problem comes when
    > >>>> defining such macro while trying to build unmodified source code with
    > >>>> BSD origins on systems with Linux headers.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Rename the user visible struct members from __unused to __unused0 to
    > >>>> not cause compilation failures due to that macro, which should not be
    > >>>> a problem as those members are supposed to be private anyway.
    > >>
    > >> ^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to
    > >> name the unused/padding members "__unused".
    > >> So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more
    > >> sensible would be fine.
    > >
    > > On a quick glance, I've found other functionally similar struct
    > > member names present on the tree:
    > >
    > > __unused __unusedN __reserved __reservedN __reserved_N __resN
    > > __pad __padN __flr_pad __ifi_pad __tcpm_padN __tcpct_padN
    > >
    > > Do you mean you'd like to see patch(es) to rename all those? I'd not
    > > mind providing them, although my immediate concern right now is just
    > > regarding __unused.
    >
    > __.* and _[A-Z].* are reserved for the implementation. Unfortunately,
    > both the kernel userspace headers and the libc are part of the
    > implementation, so there needs to be some common sense applied to avoid
    > clashes. IMO renaming __unused to __unused0 on the basis that some
    > headers define __unused to __attribute__((__unused__)) makes sense, but
    > blindly renaming any occurence of double underscore helps little.

    Agree on Michael on this.

    Sam


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-04 14:37    [W:0.023 / U:0.964 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site