Re: [CFT] [JANITORIAL] Unbork fs.h

["J.A. Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>]

On 20020104 Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
>Needing to type 'struct' everywhere is annoying and makes for long lines.
>Other than that it's harmless, and actually, the situation where you have two 
>ways of spelling everything is annoying too.  Anyway, if it was to be done,
>I'd spell it:
>
>	typedef struct super_struct super;
>	typedef struct inode_struct inode;
>
>	static inline inode *new_inode(super *sb)
>	{
>		inode *ni = (inode *) malloc(sizeof(inode));
>		...
>	}
>
>It won't happen though, because it would generate a massive diff for the sole 
>reason of making things prettier, and a very high percentage of existing 
>patches would break immediately.  If you're going to clean stuff up, you have 
>to do it a bit at a time while you're working on other things.
>

>From my point of view, this kind of changes can keep compatability and be done
in small chunks if you do something like

typedef struct inode inode_t;
typedef struct super_block super_block_t;

so old code still builds, new code can use new types and you can patch
code smoothly. And you can grep-r for both usages in the tree.

But all is a matter of preferences. I found it cleaner. Some people
hate the _t suffix. Many people prefer explicit 'struct' than opaque
types. And so on...

-- 
J.A. Magallon                           #  Let the source be with you...        
mailto:jamagallon@able.es
Mandrake Linux release 8.2 (Cooker) for i586
Linux werewolf 2.4.18-pre1-beo #1 SMP Fri Jan 4 02:25:59 CET 2002 i686