Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:30:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:30:56 -0400 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:19727 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:30:56 -0400 Subject: Re: [TRIVIAL PATCH] Remove list_t infection. From: Robert Love To: Dan Aloni Cc: Rusty Russell , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au In-Reply-To: <20020906092829.GA32379@callisto.yi.org> References: <20020902003318.7CB682C092@lists.samba.org> <20020906092829.GA32379@callisto.yi.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 06 Sep 2002 10:35:24 -0400 Message-Id: <1031322928.940.41.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 837 Lines: 22 On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 05:28, Dan Aloni wrote: > task_t, anyone? I actually like task_t, and it is my lone typedef exception, but maybe I am the exception... My real complaint against typedefs (and list_t in particular) is their inconsistent use. I think we have done a good job universally using task_t vs struct task_struct, and thus its not an issue to keep it... On the other hand, I would not scream too loudly over its removal. Anyhow, I think any change should be ack'ed by Ingo because its his code and he deals with it a disappropriately large amount of the time. Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/