On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 07:56:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 02:22:43PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Guillem Jover wrote: > > > On BSD systems __unused has traditionally been defined to mean the > > > equivalent of gcc's __attribute__((__unused__)), some parts of the > > > Linux tree use that convention too (e.g. perf). The problem comes when > > > defining such macro while trying to build unmodified source code with > > > BSD origins on systems with Linux headers. > > > > > > Rename the user visible struct members from __unused to __unused0 to > > > not cause compilation failures due to that macro, which should not be > > > a problem as those members are supposed to be private anyway. > > ^__ is reserved for libc internal stuff and there is no reason to > name the unused/padding members "__unused". > So one or a set of patches that rename them all to something more > sensible would be fine. On a quick glance, I've found other functionally similar struct member names present on the tree: __unused __unusedN __reserved __reservedN __reserved_N __resN __pad __padN __flr_pad __ifi_pad __tcpm_padN __tcpct_padN Do you mean you'd like to see patch(es) to rename all those? I'd not mind providing them, although my immediate concern right now is just regarding __unused. There's also __buf in linux/sem.h and __data in linux/socket.h, but I'd rather not thouch those, as I'd expect to be users for them? thanks, guillem -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
