Return-path: Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:2304 "EHLO mms3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751645Ab2K3VVo (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:21:44 -0500 Message-ID: <50B9235D.7050309@broadcom.com> (sfid-20121130_222205_129004_33AC9E74) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:21:33 +0100 From: "Arend van Spriel" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, backports@vger.kernel.org, alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com, brudley@broadcom.com, rvossen@broadcom.com, frankyl@broadcom.com, kanyan@broadcom.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, s.nawrocki@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers: convert struct spinlock to spinlock_t References: <1354221910-22493-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <50B87082.3020604@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/30/2012 09:25 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez > wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>> So what is the rationale here. During mainlining our drivers we had to >>> remove all uses of 'typedef struct foo foo_t;'. The Linux CodingStyle >>> (chapter 5 Typedefs) is spending a number of lines explaining why. >>> >>> So is spinlock_t an exception to this rule simply because the kernel >>> uses spinlock_t all over the place. >> >> Yes. > > Let me provide a better explanation. In practice drivers should not be > creating their own typedefs given that generally the reasons to create > them do not exist for drivers. The kernel may provide their own though > for reasons explained in CodingStyle and in such cases the drivers > should use these supplied typedefs. Ok. Fine by me. It just looked like a case of saying a and doing b. Thanks for taking time giving the better explanation :-) Gr. AvS