Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:31:10 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Marius Strobl <marius@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r226947 - in head/sys: dev/esp sparc64/sbus Message-ID: <4EAE248E.1060507@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20111031042526.GA57014@FreeBSD.org> References: <201110302117.p9ULHgLD085245@svn.freebsd.org> <20111031042526.GA57014@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/30/11 9:25 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 09:17:42PM +0000, Marius Strobl wrote: >> Author: marius >> Date: Sun Oct 30 21:17:42 2011 >> New Revision: 226947 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/226947 >> >> Log: >> - Use device_t rather than the NetBSDish struct device. > Hmm, I though that style(9) advises against this practice: > > Avoid using typedefs for structure types. Typedefs are problematic > because they do not properly hide their underlying type; [...] > > When convention requires a typedef, make its name match the struct tag. > Avoid typedefs ending in _t, except as specified in Standard C or by > POSIX. > > Does these rules not apply for struct device for some reason? > > ./danfe > I agree we should be trying to get rid of the blah_t horrors. I think this went the wrong direction.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAE248E.1060507>