Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visiblestruct member names

[Guillem Jover]

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.

There's also __buf in linux/sem.h and __data in linux/socket.h, but
I'd rather not thouch those, as I'd expect to be users for them?

thanks,
guillem
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/