linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y4TAF1hn0l1CziUh@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 16:05:11 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>
Cc:     Gerald Loacker <gerald.loacker@...fvision.net>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Jakob Hauser <jahau@...ketmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:48:48PM +0100, Michael Riesch wrote:
> On 11/28/22 14:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:18:04PM +0100, Gerald Loacker wrote:
> >> Am 25.11.2022 um 12:01 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:

...

> > It's a rule to use _t for typedef:s in the kernel. That's why
> > I suggested to leave struct definition and only typedef the same structures
> > (existing) to new names (if needed).
> 
> Andy, excuse our ignorance but we are not sure how this typedef approach
> is supposed to look like...
> 
> >> or
> > 
> >> 	typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
> 
> ... because
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> struct iio_val_int_plus_micro {
> 	int integer;
> 	int micro;
> };
> 
> typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
> 
> int main()
> {
>   struct iio_val_int_plus_micro a = { .integer = 100, .micro = 10, };
>   struct iio_val_int_plus_micro_db b = { .integer = 20, .micro = 10, };
>   return 0;
> }
> 
> won't compile.

I see. Thanks for pointing this out.

Then the question is why do we need the two same structures with different
names?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko