From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755487Ab2BFQNw (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:13:52 -0500 Received: from mail-lpp01m020-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:40955 "EHLO mail-lpp01m020-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754852Ab2BFQNu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:13:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1327788715-24076-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <20120202152900.GA4583@sergelap> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:13:48 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] seccomp: kill the seccomp_t typedef From: Will Drewry To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, segoon@openwall.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, 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, gregkh@suse.de, 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Will Drewry 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. Thanks for the background and explanation! will