Re: [PATCH] 2.5.21 - list.h cleanup

[Thomas 'Dent' Mirlacher]

--snip/snip

> I think you will find that the "struct list_head" is the preferred way
> to go (which is why there are lots of "struct list_head" users in the
> code and few "list_t" users.

ok, the point that *_t is hiding implementation details (when used for
structs is valid). but is there a general consens on not using typedefs
for structs?

if yes, can we _please_ get rid of the *_t for structs.
if no, shouldn't we use the types already defined?

a similar thing will be unsigned (int|short|long|...)

just my $0.02 for the day,

	tm

-- 
in sometimes i don't, this time i do.