> > But i think it would be useful to introduce some sort of '_t convention',
> > where _t always means a complex (or potentially complex - opaque) type. It
> > makes code so much more compact and readable, and it does not hide
> > anything - _t *always* means a complex type in the way i use it.
>
> OTOH, I've thought of adding a kerrno_t which is an int, and only useful
> for documentation purposes (meaning: I return 0 or -errno). This
> conflicts with your _t definition 8(
well, good rules have exceptions, and kerrno_t is not purely equivalent to
int, it's rather a restricted range of integers. This makes it more
eligible for the _t usage than counter_t for example.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/