On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Luis _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
