From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mansfield Subject: Re: coding style question Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:40:37 -0800 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040225144037.A1284@beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20040225182523.GD25779@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:50153 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261661AbUBYWkn (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:40:43 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from denebeim@deepthot.org on Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:40:27AM -0700 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jay Denebeim Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 11:40:27AM -0700, Jay Denebeim wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 06:16:48PM +0000, Jay Denebeim wrote: > (I mentioned typedefs being removed) > > > what was the reasoning for this? > > > > We hate typedefs. > > Well, that's certainly convincing. Funny that, I don't recall hating > typedefs, in fact I distinctly recall liking them and being happy when > they were added to Lattice's Amiga compiler back in the stone age. Is > there some particular reason 'we' hate them? Hi here's part of Greg's presentation from some time back: http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/ols_2002_kernel_codingstyle_talk/html/mgp00024.html Really you want the next slide off the above ;-) -- Patrick Mansfield