On 11/30/2012 09:25 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 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. Ok. Fine by me. It just looked like a case of saying a and doing b. Thanks for taking time giving the better explanation :-) Gr. AvS -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
