linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/9] CodingStyle: mention "typedef struct S {} S;" if typedef is used

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: <6513ce31-bb0f-4692-bc98-75232ce2ee70@p183>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 21:37:31 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] CodingStyle: mention "typedef struct S {} S;" if
 typedef is used

On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 12:47:19PM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Fri,  9 May 2025 23:34:25 +0300
> Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> escreveu:
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/coding-style.rst | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > index ac9c1dbe00b7..5c5902a0f897 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > @@ -443,6 +443,20 @@ EVER use a typedef unless you can clearly match one of those rules.
> >  In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably
> >  be directly accessed should **never** be a typedef.
> >  
> > +If you must use ``typedef`` consider using identical names for both the type
> > +and its alias so that the type can be forward declared if necessary:
> 
> Better not, as symbols with duplicated names will generate a Sphinx warning (*). 
> 
> (*) It shouldn't, but there is a pending issue on Sphinx since version 3.1
>     still not addressed:
> 
> 	https://github.com/sphinx-doc/sphinx/pull/8313

OMG, so we are at mercy of static checkers _and_ documentation system? now

I've realised, changelog is bady worded:

Some people invent styles when typedef'ing struct/union:

	typedef struct xxx_s {} xxx;
	typedef struct _xxx {} xxx;

There is no reason to do that, just typedef to exact same name.