On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Does this patch make any sense?
Yes and no. As you noticed, the end result is that we talk about "struct
atomic_t", which is obviously wrong - atomic_t isn't a struct, it's a
typedef, and there is really no "strict atomic_t" type.
So the old error message was in many ways more correct.
Equally obviously, the new error message is a lot more _useful_, so I
think your patch is fine despite resulting in that strangeness.
It's not like you bind the identifier to NS_STRUCT, so it only affects
error printout, it doesn't affect actual symbol binding (ie your change
doesn't make "struct atomic_t" actually work in a program, as far as I can
tell). But you should probably test that, and possibly add a note on the
issue.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
