From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:54:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:54:24 -0400 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:57534 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:54:24 -0400 From: Rusty Russell To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] list.h update (resent again) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:53:24 +0200." <20020829105324.A13720@lst.de> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 11:42:20 +1000 Message-Id: <20020830005909.2F5542C19B@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <20020829105324.A13720@lst.de> you write: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 04:03:58PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Don't apply it (at least, the first part is bad). > > > > Linus, here's my patch to get rid of the usurper list_t in 2.5 > > (against 2.5.32, so might have some rejects). > > U don't think that's a valid reason to delay it. Ingo added list_t > for a reason und 2.4 is not the right place to change struct list_head > to struct list, which sounds good for 2.5. Ingo's reason was that it made some of his lines fit in 80 cols 8) Having two names for the same thing is a confusing waste, and "struct list_head" is the defacto standard. If you have nothing better to do, I can suggest plenty of worthwhile projects which could use your skills 8) Die typedefs, die, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.