Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] seccomp: kill the seccomp_t typedef

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> task_struct {
>  ...
>  struct seccomp seccomp;
> }
>
> was as ideal.  I've noticed that almost all of the duplicate names in
> the task struct use redundancy to differentiate the naming, but I'm
> happy enough to rename if appropriate.

The redundant "struct xyz_struct" naming is traditional, but we try to
avoid it these days. The reason for it is that I long long ago was a
bit confused about the C namespace rules, so for the longest time I
made struct names unique for no really good reason. The struct/union
namespace is separate from the other namespaces, so trying to make
things unique really has no good reason.

And obviously "struct task_struct" is one of those very old things,
and then the "struct xyz_struct" naming kind of spread from there.

I think "struct seccomp" is fine, and even if "struct x x" looks a bit
odd, it's at least _less_ repetition than "struct x_struct x" which is
just really repetitive.

That said, just to make "grep" easier, please do the whole "struct
xyz" always together, and always with just a single space in between
them, so that

   git grep "struct xyz"

does the right thing. And for the same reason, when declaring a
struct, people should always use "struct xyz {", with that exact
spacing. The exact details of spacing obviously has no semantic
meaning, but making it easy to grep for use and for definition is
really convenient.

                   Linus