On 25 September 2015 at 15:21, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 23:21 +0200, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>> OK, after a second look, it seems that the anonymous structure indeed
>> does not provide any extra benefit. So I believe everyone now agrees
>> now that the following definitions are the most appropriate:
>>
>> typedef struct {
>> pa_mem mem; /* Parent; must be first */
>> int fd;
>> } pa_memfd;
>>
>> typedef struct {
>> pa_mem mem; /* Parent; must be first */
>> int id;
>> bool do_unlink;
>> } pa_shm;
>>
>> Good :-)
>>
>> But I can't get my head around not using the anonymous unions, and
>> basically whether they provide any perceived disadvantage:
>
> I don't think Arun objected to the use of anonymous unions. I certainly
> don't see anything wrong with using anonymous unions in pa_mempool.
Yup, and I can see why I might have come off that way. I think this
pattern is fine.
Cheers,
Arun
