From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 07:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: <20120103065659.GA32216@merkur.ravnborg.org> References: <20120102024418.GA10483@gaara.hadrons.org> <20120102202243.GA31103@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120102202243.GA31103-E4JsH6yu/ca99If2fRKg35Ea+QML8DWm@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Guillem Jover , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kbuild-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Marek List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 02:22:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > (+cc: some possible relevant people) > Hi, > > Guillem Jover wrote: > > > On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the > > equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the > > Linux tree use that convention too (e.g. perf). The problem comes when > > defining such macro while trying to build unmodified source code with > > BSD origins on systems with Linux headers. > > > > Rename the user visible struct members from __unused to __unused0 to > > not cause compilation failures due to that macro, which should not be > > a problem as those members are supposed to be private anyway. ^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to name the unused/padding members "__unused". So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more sensible would be fine. Sam