Re: struct task_struct -> task_t

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

On 01.21, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Martin Hicks writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:24:34PM +0000, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:17:57PM -0800, john moser wrote:
> 
> >>> It has come to my attention that in some places
> >>> in the kernel, 'struct task_struct' is used; and
> >>> in others, 'task_t' is used.  Also, 'task_t' is
> >>> 'typedef struct task_struct task_t;'.
> >>>
> >>> I made a small script to change around as much
> >>> as I could so that everything uses task_t,
> >>
> >> What the fsck for?  If anything, the opposite
> >> (and removal of that typedef) would be preferable.
> >
> > John,
> >
> > As Al is trying to point out, we try to discourage
> > the use of typedefs in the kernel.  It is much
> > easier to see that blah_t is really a struct if
> > we always use 'struct blah'.
> 
> That's no good for variable usage. We don't
> write "struct current".
> 
> You're giving the argument for Hungarian
> notation. Not that I'd suggest it, but that
> is where your argument leads.
> 
> IMHO, we type too much already.
> 

At least, don't be redundant.
If you want explicit struct, let the type be 'struct task'
(ie, kill the second _struct).
If you want to use struct types as the rest of types, typedef
a task_t.
But 'struct task_struct' is redundand, long and ugly.

-- 
J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()able!es>     \                 Software is like sex:
werewolf!able!es                         \           It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 10.0 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.6.1-jam4 (gcc 3.3.2 (Mandrake Linux 10.0 3.3.2-4mdk))