From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752966Ab2A0XmJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:42:09 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38013 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752644Ab2A0XmH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:42:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:41:40 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Will Drewry Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, segoon@openwall.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, luto@mit.edu, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, dhowells@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, indan@nul.nu, mcgrathr@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] seccomp: kill the seccomp_t typedef Message-ID: <20120127234140.GA19407@suse.de> References: <1327706681-11959-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1327706681-11959-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:24:39PM -0600, Will Drewry wrote: > Replaces the seccomp_t typedef with seccomp_struct to match modern > kernel style. > > Signed-off-by: Will Drewry > --- > include/linux/sched.h | 2 +- > include/linux/seccomp.h | 10 ++++++---- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > index 4032ec1..288b5cb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -1418,7 +1418,7 @@ struct task_struct { > uid_t loginuid; > unsigned int sessionid; > #endif > - seccomp_t seccomp; > + struct seccomp_struct seccomp; Isn't 'struct seccomp_struct' a bit redundant? How about a simple 'struct seccomp' instead? That is, if this is even needed... greg k-h