Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:59:12 +0000 (UTC) | From | Thorsten Glaser <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names |
| |
Sam Ravnborg dixit:
>> Guillem Jover wrote:
>> > On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the >> > equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the […] >^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to >name the unused/padding members "__unused".
Considering that glibc has seen the light¹ now too, can we please do something about these now? The BSD tools (not just NetBSD®) have been using this for far longer after all…
Currently (git pull --ff torvalds master), we have:
• 2 occurrences of files *inside* the Linux kernel defining __unused to² __attribute__((unused)) themselves
• 68 struct members and function arguments called __unused
>So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more >sensible would be fine.
I think __unused0 is okay as it matches current __unused[0-9] in use by other parts of the Linux kernel – although glibc now uses __glibc_reserved[0-9], I think this doesn’t look like the Linux kernel should use it ☻☺
① http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/36439
② I’ve recently come to the belief that this should be __attribute__((__unused__)) in all cases, i.e. all those attribute namings need double underscores before and after, as some software likes to #define printf to something else, lighttpd does #define bounded something else, so there’s probably software out there containing #define unused foo.
-- 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/
| |