[PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names

[PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names

[Guillem Jover]

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.

Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover <guillem@hadrons.org>
---
 arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h       |    2 +-
 arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h     |    2 +-
 arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h        |    2 +-
 arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h      |    2 +-
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h |    2 +-
 arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h        |    2 +-
 arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h     |    4 ++--
 arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h     |    2 +-
 arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h     |    2 +-
 arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h      |    4 ++--
 arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h       |    2 +-
 arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h      |    2 +-
 arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h         |    2 +-
 include/linux/icmp.h                |    2 +-
 include/linux/sysctl.h              |    2 +-
 15 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h
index 07ad3e6..5754865 100644
--- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h
+++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ struct stat64 {
 	unsigned long	st_mtime_nsec;
 	unsigned long	st_ctime;
 	unsigned long   st_ctime_nsec;
-  	long		__unused[3];
+	long		__unused0[3];
 };
 
 #endif
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h
index 14749ae..7ea9743 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct ucontext {
 	struct sigcontext uc_mcontext;
 	sigset_t	  uc_sigmask;
 	/* Allow for uc_sigmask growth.  Glibc uses a 1024-bit sigset_t.  */
-	int		  __unused[32 - (sizeof (sigset_t) / sizeof (int))];
+	int		  __unused0[32 - (sizeof (sigset_t) / sizeof (int))];
 	/* Last for extensibility.  Eight byte aligned because some
 	   coprocessors require eight byte alignment.  */
  	unsigned long	  uc_regspace[128] __attribute__((__aligned__(8)));
diff --git a/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h
index 367bb90..2ec0d4c 100644
--- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h
+++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ struct stat {
 	unsigned long	st_ctime_nsec;
 	unsigned long	st_blksize;
 	long		st_blocks;
-	unsigned long	__unused[3];
+	unsigned long	__unused0[3];
 };
 
 #define STAT_HAVE_NSEC 1
diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h
index b77df03..333d49f 100644
--- a/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h
+++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ struct compat_flock {
 	compat_off_t	l_len;
 	s32		l_sysid;
 	compat_pid_t	l_pid;
-	short		__unused;
+	short		__unused0;
 	s32		pad[4];
 };
 
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h
index d9a4ddf..6121f9e 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct ucontext {
 	sigset_t	uc_sigmask;
 	/* glibc has 1024-bit signal masks, ours are 64-bit */
 #ifdef __powerpc64__
-	sigset_t	__unused[15];	/* Allow for uc_sigmask growth */
+	sigset_t	__unused0[15];	/* Allow for uc_sigmask growth */
 	struct sigcontext uc_mcontext;	/* last for extensibility */
 #else
 	int		uc_maskext[30];
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h
index d92959e..9577947 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ struct stat {
 	unsigned long  st_ctime_nsec;
         unsigned long  st_blksize;
         long           st_blocks;
-        unsigned long  __unused[3];
+        unsigned long  __unused0[3];
 };
 
 #endif /* __s390x__ */
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h
index b8be20d..8f20999 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ struct compat_flock {
 	compat_off_t	l_start;
 	compat_off_t	l_len;
 	compat_pid_t	l_pid;
-	short		__unused;
+	short		__unused0;
 };
 
 #define F_GETLK64	12
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ struct compat_flock64 {
 	compat_loff_t	l_start;
 	compat_loff_t	l_len;
 	compat_pid_t	l_pid;
-	short		__unused;
+	short		__unused0;
 };
 
 struct compat_statfs {
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h
index 4269ca6..7dffbe2 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ typedef struct {
 		unsigned long	pr_regs[32];
 		double		pr_dregs[16];
 	} pr_fr;
-	unsigned long __unused;
+	unsigned long __unused0;
 	unsigned long	pr_fsr;
 	unsigned char	pr_qcnt;
 	unsigned char	pr_q_entrysize;
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h
index 7df8b7f..1db74f5 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ typedef struct {
 		unsigned int	pr_regs[32];
 		unsigned long	pr_dregs[16];
 	} pr_fr;
-	unsigned int __unused;
+	unsigned int __unused0;
 	unsigned int	pr_fsr;
 	unsigned char	pr_qcnt;
 	unsigned char	pr_q_entrysize;
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h
index d0b83f6..a5e8516 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h
@@ -47,8 +47,8 @@
 #define F_WRLCK		2
 #define F_UNLCK		3
 
-#define __ARCH_FLOCK_PAD	short __unused;
-#define __ARCH_FLOCK64_PAD	short __unused;
+#define __ARCH_FLOCK_PAD	short __unused0;
+#define __ARCH_FLOCK64_PAD	short __unused0;
 
 #include <asm-generic/fcntl.h>
 
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h
index a232e9e..7258fb4 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h
+++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct stat64 {
 	unsigned long	st_mtime_nsec;
 	unsigned long	st_ctime;
 	unsigned long	st_ctime_nsec;
-	long		__unused[3];
+	long		__unused0[3];
 };
 
 #else
diff --git a/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h
index bf95f55..6f31f94 100644
--- a/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h
+++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ struct compat_sysctl {
 	unsigned int	oldlenp;
 	unsigned int	newval;
 	unsigned int	newlen;
-	unsigned int	__unused[4];
+	unsigned int	__unused0[4];
 };
 
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h
index e0b1d9b..a7fb9e5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ struct stat {
 	unsigned long	st_mtime_nsec;
 	unsigned long	st_ctime;
 	unsigned long   st_ctime_nsec;
-	long		__unused[3];
+	long		__unused0[3];
 };
 #endif
 
diff --git a/include/linux/icmp.h b/include/linux/icmp.h
index 474f2a5..124e861 100644
--- a/include/linux/icmp.h
+++ b/include/linux/icmp.h
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct icmphdr {
 	} echo;
 	__be32	gateway;
 	struct {
-		__be16	__unused;
+		__be16	__unused0;
 		__be16	mtu;
 	} frag;
   } un;
diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
index 703cfa3..9911ac5 100644
--- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
+++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct __sysctl_args {
 	size_t __user *oldlenp;
 	void __user *newval;
 	size_t newlen;
-	unsigned long __unused[4];
+	unsigned long __unused0[4];
 };
 
 /* Define sysctl names first */
-- 
1.7.7.3

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

[Jonathan Nieder]

(+cc: some possible relevant people)
Hi,

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.

Thanks, sounds like a good idea.

It would be nice to document one detail: why do these struct members
have a double-underscore before "unused" in the first place?  I
understand that libc has (and hence installed kernel headers have) a
limited namespace to work with and they have to be on guard against
applications doing something crazy like

	#define unused 0

but aren't there other identifiers in that namespace that work just as
well?

That's not actually an objection --- I'm just curious.  __unused1 like
is already used in e.g. asm-generic/stat.h seems fine to me.

Some examples:

> Signed-off-by: Guillem Jover <guillem@hadrons.org>
> ---
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h
> index 07ad3e6..5754865 100644
> --- a/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h
> +++ b/arch/alpha/include/asm/stat.h
> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ struct stat64 {
>  	unsigned long	st_mtime_nsec;
>  	unsigned long	st_ctime;
>  	unsigned long   st_ctime_nsec;
> -  	long		__unused[3];
> +	long		__unused0[3];
>  };

This could be

	long		st_unused[3];

or

	long		st_padding[3];

>  #endif
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h
> index 14749ae..7ea9743 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/ucontext.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ struct ucontext {
>  	struct sigcontext uc_mcontext;
>  	sigset_t	  uc_sigmask;
>  	/* Allow for uc_sigmask growth.  Glibc uses a 1024-bit sigset_t.  */
> -	int		  __unused[32 - (sizeof (sigset_t) / sizeof (int))];
> +	int		  __unused0[32 - (sizeof (sigset_t) / sizeof (int))];
>  	/* Last for extensibility.  Eight byte aligned because some
>  	   coprocessors require eight byte alignment.  */
>   	unsigned long	  uc_regspace[128] __attribute__((__aligned__(8)));

Likewise, this could be something like

	int		  uc_sigmask_padding[32 - ...];

Remainder left unsnipped for convenience of people cc-ed.  If the
general idea looks sensible, what would be the best way to usher it
into mainline?  Should it be split up into patches for the various
arch-specific trees, or should acks from relevant people be collected
some other way?

Thanks,
Jonathan

> diff --git a/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h
> index 367bb90..2ec0d4c 100644
> --- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h
> +++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/stat.h
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ struct stat {
>  	unsigned long	st_ctime_nsec;
>  	unsigned long	st_blksize;
>  	long		st_blocks;
> -	unsigned long	__unused[3];
> +	unsigned long	__unused0[3];
>  };
>  
>  #define STAT_HAVE_NSEC 1
> diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h
> index b77df03..333d49f 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h
> +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/compat.h
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ struct compat_flock {
>  	compat_off_t	l_len;
>  	s32		l_sysid;
>  	compat_pid_t	l_pid;
> -	short		__unused;
> +	short		__unused0;
>  	s32		pad[4];
>  };
>  
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h
> index d9a4ddf..6121f9e 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/ucontext.h
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct ucontext {
>  	sigset_t	uc_sigmask;
>  	/* glibc has 1024-bit signal masks, ours are 64-bit */
>  #ifdef __powerpc64__
> -	sigset_t	__unused[15];	/* Allow for uc_sigmask growth */
> +	sigset_t	__unused0[15];	/* Allow for uc_sigmask growth */
>  	struct sigcontext uc_mcontext;	/* last for extensibility */
>  #else
>  	int		uc_maskext[30];
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h
> index d92959e..9577947 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/stat.h
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ struct stat {
>  	unsigned long  st_ctime_nsec;
>          unsigned long  st_blksize;
>          long           st_blocks;
> -        unsigned long  __unused[3];
> +        unsigned long  __unused0[3];
>  };
>  
>  #endif /* __s390x__ */
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h
> index b8be20d..8f20999 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/compat.h
> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ struct compat_flock {
>  	compat_off_t	l_start;
>  	compat_off_t	l_len;
>  	compat_pid_t	l_pid;
> -	short		__unused;
> +	short		__unused0;
>  };
>  
>  #define F_GETLK64	12
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ struct compat_flock64 {
>  	compat_loff_t	l_start;
>  	compat_loff_t	l_len;
>  	compat_pid_t	l_pid;
> -	short		__unused;
> +	short		__unused0;
>  };
>  
>  struct compat_statfs {
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h
> index 4269ca6..7dffbe2 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_32.h
> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ typedef struct {
>  		unsigned long	pr_regs[32];
>  		double		pr_dregs[16];
>  	} pr_fr;
> -	unsigned long __unused;
> +	unsigned long __unused0;
>  	unsigned long	pr_fsr;
>  	unsigned char	pr_qcnt;
>  	unsigned char	pr_q_entrysize;
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h
> index 7df8b7f..1db74f5 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/elf_64.h
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ typedef struct {
>  		unsigned int	pr_regs[32];
>  		unsigned long	pr_dregs[16];
>  	} pr_fr;
> -	unsigned int __unused;
> +	unsigned int __unused0;
>  	unsigned int	pr_fsr;
>  	unsigned char	pr_qcnt;
>  	unsigned char	pr_q_entrysize;
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h
> index d0b83f6..a5e8516 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/fcntl.h
> @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@
>  #define F_WRLCK		2
>  #define F_UNLCK		3
>  
> -#define __ARCH_FLOCK_PAD	short __unused;
> -#define __ARCH_FLOCK64_PAD	short __unused;
> +#define __ARCH_FLOCK_PAD	short __unused0;
> +#define __ARCH_FLOCK64_PAD	short __unused0;
>  
>  #include <asm-generic/fcntl.h>
>  
> diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h
> index a232e9e..7258fb4 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h
> +++ b/arch/sparc/include/asm/stat.h
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ struct stat64 {
>  	unsigned long	st_mtime_nsec;
>  	unsigned long	st_ctime;
>  	unsigned long	st_ctime_nsec;
> -	long		__unused[3];
> +	long		__unused0[3];
>  };
>  
>  #else
> diff --git a/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h
> index bf95f55..6f31f94 100644
> --- a/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h
> +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/compat.h
> @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ struct compat_sysctl {
>  	unsigned int	oldlenp;
>  	unsigned int	newval;
>  	unsigned int	newlen;
> -	unsigned int	__unused[4];
> +	unsigned int	__unused0[4];
>  };
>  
>  
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h
> index e0b1d9b..a7fb9e5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/stat.h
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ struct stat {
>  	unsigned long	st_mtime_nsec;
>  	unsigned long	st_ctime;
>  	unsigned long   st_ctime_nsec;
> -	long		__unused[3];
> +	long		__unused0[3];
>  };
>  #endif
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/icmp.h b/include/linux/icmp.h
> index 474f2a5..124e861 100644
> --- a/include/linux/icmp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/icmp.h
> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct icmphdr {
>  	} echo;
>  	__be32	gateway;
>  	struct {
> -		__be16	__unused;
> +		__be16	__unused0;
>  		__be16	mtu;
>  	} frag;
>    } un;
> diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> index 703cfa3..9911ac5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ struct __sysctl_args {
>  	size_t __user *oldlenp;
>  	void __user *newval;
>  	size_t newlen;
> -	unsigned long __unused[4];
> +	unsigned long __unused0[4];
>  };
>  
>  /* Define sysctl names first */
> -- 
> 1.7.7.3
> 
> 

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

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 02:22:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (+cc: some possible relevant people)
> Hi,
> 
> 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.

	Sam

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

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 02:22:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> (+cc: some possible relevant people)
> Hi,
> 
> 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.

	Sam

Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct 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

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

[Michal Marek]

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.

Just my $0.02.
Michal

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

[Sam Ravnborg]

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

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

[Sam Ravnborg]

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

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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Sam Ravnborg dixit:

>> Guillem Jover wrote:

>> > On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the
>> > equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the
[…]
>^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to
>name the unused/padding members "__unused".

Considering that glibc has seen the light¹ now too, can we please
do something about these now? The BSD tools (not just NetBSD®) have
been using this for far longer after all…


Currently (git pull --ff torvalds master), we have:

• 2 occurrences of files *inside* the Linux kernel defining __unused
  to² __attribute__((unused)) themselves

• 68 struct members and function arguments called __unused

>So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more
>sensible would be fine.

I think __unused0 is okay as it matches current __unused[0-9] in
use by other parts of the Linux kernel – although glibc now uses
__glibc_reserved[0-9], I think this doesn’t look like the Linux
kernel should use it ☻☺


① http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/36439

② I’ve recently come to the belief that this should be
  __attribute__((__unused__)) in all cases, i.e. all those
  attribute namings need double underscores before and after,
  as some software likes to #define printf to something else,
  lighttpd does #define bounded something else, so there’s
  probably software out there containing #define unused foo.

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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Sam Ravnborg dixit:

>> Guillem Jover wrote:

>> > On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the
>> > equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the
[…]
>^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to
>name the unused/padding members "__unused".

Considering that glibc has seen the light¹ now too, can we please
do something about these now? The BSD tools (not just NetBSD®) have
been using this for far longer after all…


Currently (git pull --ff torvalds master), we have:

• 2 occurrences of files *inside* the Linux kernel defining __unused
  to² __attribute__((unused)) themselves

• 68 struct members and function arguments called __unused

>So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more
>sensible would be fine.

I think __unused0 is okay as it matches current __unused[0-9] in
use by other parts of the Linux kernel – although glibc now uses
__glibc_reserved[0-9], I think this doesn’t look like the Linux
kernel should use it ☻☺


① http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/36439

② I’ve recently come to the belief that this should be
  __attribute__((__unused__)) in all cases, i.e. all those
  attribute namings need double underscores before and after,
  as some software likes to #define printf to something else,
  lighttpd does #define bounded something else, so there’s
  probably software out there containing #define unused foo.

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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Sam Ravnborg dixit:

>> Guillem Jover wrote:

>> > On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the
>> > equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the
[…]
>^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to
>name the unused/padding members "__unused".

Considering that glibc has seen the light¹ now too, can we please
do something about these now? The BSD tools (not just NetBSD®) have
been using this for far longer after all…


Currently (git pull --ff torvalds master), we have:

• 2 occurrences of files *inside* the Linux kernel defining __unused
  to² __attribute__((unused)) themselves

• 68 struct members and function arguments called __unused

>So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more
>sensible would be fine.

I think __unused0 is okay as it matches current __unused[0-9] in
use by other parts of the Linux kernel – although glibc now uses
__glibc_reserved[0-9], I think this doesn’t look like the Linux
kernel should use it ☻☺


① http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/36439

② I’ve recently come to the belief that this should be
  __attribute__((__unused__)) in all cases, i.e. all those
  attribute namings need double underscores before and after,
  as some software likes to #define printf to something else,
  lighttpd does #define bounded something else, so there’s
  probably software out there containing #define unused foo.