Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:18:36 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.5.21 - list.h cleanup |
| |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > But i think it would be useful to introduce some sort of '_t convention', > > where _t always means a complex (or potentially complex - opaque) type. It > > makes code so much more compact and readable, and it does not hide > > anything - _t *always* means a complex type in the way i use it. > > OTOH, I've thought of adding a kerrno_t which is an int, and only useful > for documentation purposes (meaning: I return 0 or -errno). This > conflicts with your _t definition 8(
well, good rules have exceptions, and kerrno_t is not purely equivalent to int, it's rather a restricted range of integers. This makes it more eligible for the _t usage than counter_t for example.
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |