From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guillem Jover Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use __unused0 instead of __unused for user visible struct member names Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 09:14:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20120104081414.GA29745@gaara.hadrons.org> References: <20120102024418.GA10483@gaara.hadrons.org> <20120102202243.GA31103@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net> <20120103065659.GA32216@merkur.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120103065659.GA32216@merkur.ravnborg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Jonathan Nieder , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 07:56:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 02:22:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > 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. On a quick glance, I've found other functionally similar struct member names present on the tree: __unused __unusedN __reserved __reservedN __reserved_N __resN __pad __padN __flr_pad __ifi_pad __tcpm_padN __tcpct_padN Do you mean you'd like to see patch(es) to rename all those? I'd not mind providing them, although my immediate concern right now is just regarding __unused. There's also __buf in linux/sem.h and __data in linux/socket.h, but I'd rather not thouch those, as I'd expect to be users for them? thanks, guillem