Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] seccomp: kill the seccomp_t typedef | From | Cong Wang <> | Date | Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:13:46 +0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 17:47 -0600, Will Drewry wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:24:39PM -0600, Will Drewry wrote: > >> Replaces the seccomp_t typedef with seccomp_struct to match modern > >> kernel style. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org> > >> --- > >> include/linux/sched.h | 2 +- > >> include/linux/seccomp.h | 10 ++++++---- > >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > >> index 4032ec1..288b5cb 100644 > >> --- a/include/linux/sched.h > >> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > >> @@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@ struct task_struct { > >> uid_t loginuid; > >> unsigned int sessionid; > >> #endif > >> - seccomp_t seccomp; > >> + struct seccomp_struct seccomp; > > > > 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).
seccomp_struct for a type is okay, but you also have:
+#define seccomp_struct_init_task(_seccomp) do { } while (0); +#define seccomp_struct_fork(_tsk, _orig) do { } while (0); +#define seccomp_struct_free_task(_seccomp) do { } while (0);
in patch 2/3, "struct" in these function/macro names is redundant.
Thanks.
| |