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

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Feb 03 2012 - 20:06:46 EST

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at