[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1327711116.22710.147.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:38:36 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, john.johansen@...onical.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
pmoore@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com, djm@...drot.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, segoon@...nwall.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, avi@...hat.com,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, luto@....edu,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, khilman@...com,
borislav.petkov@....com, amwang@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, olofj@...omium.org,
mhalcrow@...gle.com, dlaor@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, indan@....nu, mcgrathr@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] seccomp: kill the seccomp_t typedef
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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists