On 2018-10-19 4:31 a.m., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
On 19/10/18 08:24, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
+/* Alternate style type names, "..._t" variants preferred */
+typedef struct sg_io_hdr Sg_io_hdr;
+typedef struct sg_io_vec Sg_io_vec;
+typedef struct sg_scsi_id Sg_scsi_id;
+typedef struct sg_req_info Sg_req_info;
There are no _t variants for the above, or am I missing something?
I've expanded the comment to make it clearer I'm referring to the
definitions above in that header ***.
For example: Referring to
typedef struct sg_io_hdr {
... /* the definition of its fields */
} sg_io_hdr_t;
So the suggestion is to prefer sg_io_hdr_t to Sg_io_hdr and if you
are using C rather that C++ (in the user space) and you have very
backward looking conventions then prefer:
struct sg_io_hdr
Is that clearer?
Doug Gilbert
*** If the unified diff doesn't show that, then that is one of the
many weakness of using unified diffs for code reviews. One
of the things I'm trying to clean up is 15 years of
"laparoscopic" patches (and diff and patch are fighting back).
