From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753339Ab2A1AjX (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:39:23 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:54495 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751648Ab2A1Ail (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:38:41 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=HeuWv148 c=1 sm=0 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:17 a=oR1afkCu1uAA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=Z4svKac-VC-yKWHlqOUA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.80.29 Message-ID: <1327711116.22710.147.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] seccomp: kill the seccomp_t typedef From: Steven Rostedt To: Will Drewry Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, segoon@openwall.com, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, luto@mit.edu, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, indan@nul.nu, mcgrathr@chromium.org Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:38:36 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <1327706681-11959-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <20120127234140.GA19407@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 17:47 -0600, Will Drewry wrote: > > Isn't 'struct seccomp_struct' a bit redundant? > > > > How about a simple 'struct seccomp' instead? > > Works for me - I can't recall why that seemed to make sense (other > than the user of similar redundant names elsewhere). > You mean like... struct task_struct? ;-) -- Steve