On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:32:39PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Feb 5, 2015 5:13 PM, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I know typedef's are frowned upon, but how bad is the following option? > > > typedef void* mbox_data_info > > > int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, mbox_data_info > data); > > > > I don't see how that would help. > > > If it's abuse because the argument is a void*... What if we called it > mbox_data_info? To say platforms are free to pass data as a pointer or a > value :) Using a typedef really doesn't change anything. If you read the kernel coding style, you'll realise that typedefs are a reason to reject patches - especially to use them in the way you are proposing. Try the solution I suggested (which I notice was seemingly totally ignored.) -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
