Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] KABI example conversion and cleanup

[Avi Kivity <avi@argo.co.il>]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > struct _LA(whatever) {
> >     int foo;
> >     int bar;
> > };
> >
> > struct _LA(another) {
> >     ...
> > };
> >     
>
> this is a good sign that this is all very over designed :)
>
>   
It's an eyesore, isn't it? :)
> namespace pollution is perhaps evil, but we also should not overreact.
> Especially for struct names. *IF* they are in a "narrow enough" header,
> the user of the header knows what he is doing, and accepts these to be
> in his namespace.
>   
This is true for a small enough application. But things grow, libraries 
are added, and includes keep pulling other includes in. Sooner or later 
you'll have a collision.
> The problem is things like u64 etc that is VERY common in all headers,
> but then again __u64 etc are just fine, history has proven that already.
>   
Agree. But to be on the safe side one can use uint64_t and friends 
(which the kernel can typedef to u64 and first degree relatives)

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
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/