[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190704154549.q32q4kf4z7hdye7j@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 17:45:50 +0200
From: 'Sebastian Andrzej Siewior' <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Use spinlock_t instead of struct spinlock
On 2019-07-04 15:39:41 [+0000], David Laight wrote:
> I thought it was policy to avoid typedefs?
> Probably because you can only define them once.
We don't have many of them but we have them and should stick to them.
|$ git grep -A4 "spinlock de" scripts/
|scripts/checkpatch.pl:# check for struct spinlock declarations
|scripts/checkpatch.pl- if ($line =~ /^.\s*\bstruct\s+spinlock\s+\w+\s*;/) {
|scripts/checkpatch.pl- WARN("USE_SPINLOCK_T",
|scripts/checkpatch.pl- "struct spinlock should be spinlock_t\n" . $herecurr);
|scripts/checkpatch.pl- }
> David
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists