On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 17:47 -0600, Will Drewry wrote: > > 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). > You mean like... struct task_struct? ;-) -- Steve -- 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
