Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7

From: Miles Bader (miles@lsi.nec.co.jp)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 22:23:42 EST

Next message: Greg KH: "Re: 2.5.39 + evms 1.2.0 burn test"
Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: usb-uhci renamed under Linux-2.5.40"
In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7"
Next in thread: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> then lets at least have 'struct work' and 'struct work_queue' instead of
> 'struct work_struct', 'struct work_queue_struct'. "struct work" is already
> twice as large as "work_t".

I've always wondered about that -- why _does_ linux append `_struct' to
some structure names? It seems completely redundant (and ugly).

Thanks,

-Miles

-- 
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
  --Albert Einstein
-
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/

Next message: Greg KH: "Re: 2.5.39 + evms 1.2.0 burn test"
Previous message: Greg KH: "Re: usb-uhci renamed under Linux-2.5.40"
In reply to: Ingo Molnar: "Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7"
Next in thread: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:32 EST