--snip/snip
> I think you will find that the "struct list_head" is the preferred way
> to go (which is why there are lots of "struct list_head" users in the
> code and few "list_t" users.
ok, the point that *_t is hiding implementation details (when used for
structs is valid). but is there a general consens on not using typedefs
for structs?
if yes, can we _please_ get rid of the *_t for structs.
if no, shouldn't we use the types already defined?
a similar thing will be unsigned (int|short|long|...)
just my $0.02 for the day,
tm
-- in sometimes i don't, this time i do.- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST