On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:24:39PM -0600, Will Drewry wrote:
>> Replaces the seccomp_t typedef with seccomp_struct to match modern
>> kernel style.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/sched.h | 2 +-
>> include/linux/seccomp.h | 10 ++++++----
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index 4032ec1..288b5cb 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>> uid_t loginuid;
>> unsigned int sessionid;
>> #endif
>> - seccomp_t seccomp;
>> + struct seccomp_struct seccomp;
>
> Isn't 'struct seccomp_struct' a bit redundant?
>
> How about a simple 'struct seccomp' instead?
Works for me - I can't recall why that seemed to make sense (other
than the user of similar redundant names elsewhere).
> That is, if this is even needed...
I'd like to think it is :)
thanks!
will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
